Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Home Guard

Mr. Jewson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Home Guards will be allowed to retain their leather belts.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): As I said in my answer

announcing what items of clothing and equipment members of the Home Guard would be allowed to retain the decision was taken in the light of an up-to-date assessment of the supply position. Leather, as my hon. Friend is aware, is very short and these belts are needed for a definite military commitment overseas.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the modern view is that the children should not be chastised in this way, even by Home Guards?

Sir J. Grigg: I had not thought of that.

Sir Douglas: Hacking asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent service respirators are to be withdrawn from the Home Guard; to whom they will be reissued; and what form of respirators will replace those withdrawn from the Home Guard.

Sir J. Grigg: This matter is under consideration. The decision will depend on the operational situation at the time when the Home Guard is stood down.

Beach Clearance (Prisoners of War)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for prisoners of war to be allotted to coastal local authorities to remove the concrete blocks, iron posts and barbed wire from the beaches and so permit their use by the public.

Sir J. Grigg: As I said to my hon. and gallant Friend on 10th October the military authorities use such labour as they have available from time to time to remove these obstructions. But as my


hon. and gallant Friend will realize such labour as can be obtained is on the whole employed on work more directly concerned with winning the war.

Sir T. Moore: Surely, since the enemy compelled us to erect these defences for our own protection, it is reasonable that they should also be compelled to remove them for our comfort?

Sir J. Grigg: It is a question of what they can be employed on most usefully. I think it is true that all the German prisoners engaged on labour in this country are at the disposal of the Minister of Agriculture.

Lieut.-Colonel C. Rocke

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if the texts of broadcasts delivered by Lieut.-Colonel C. Rocke, on behalf of the Italian Fascist Government, were included in the information in this case submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Sir J. Grigg: The text of one broadcast delivered by Lieut.-Colonel C. Rocke on 15th July, 1940, was included in the information in this case submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Careful inquiries have failed to disclose any evidence that Lieut.-Colonel Rocke made other broadcasts since the outbreak of war.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to place a copy of the text of that broadcast in the Library of the House, or else circulate it in HANSARD, for the information of hon. Members?

Sir J. Grigg: I will consider it, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman will get much out of it, because the broadcast was merely a description of the good treatment that British men and women in Italy were receiving from the Italian Government. There was a broadcast in 1935, of which the Director of Public Prosecutions knew but had not the text, condemning the attitude of this country over sanctions.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is nobody in the British Empire who knows more about the antecedents of this officer, than General Sir Harold Alexander, and cannot the matter be safely left in his hands?

Sergeants and Lance-Sergeants (Pay)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War why, when the general Army pay for all ranks under sergeant was raised by 3d. a day, lance-sergeants were classed as sergeants, while under the White Paper sergeants received an increase of 7s. 6d. a day and lance-sergeants only 7s.

Sir J. Grigg: The increases made in Army pay in April this year, to which I think my hon. Friend is referring in the first part of his Question, were not general increases throughout the Army but were confined to the lower non-tradesmen ranks. The lead which the lance-sergeant had over corporals was such as not to justify any increase in his pay under that scheme. The increases given for length of service last September applied to the Army generally and there was nothing unusual in grouping the lance-sergeant with the junior rather than the senior non-commissioned officers. I take it that the 7s. 6d. and 7s. 0d. a day mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question are intended to be 1s. 6d. and 1s. 0d.

Sir H. Williams: I apologise for the error, which may be due to my handwriting. But why does the War Office call a sergeant a lance-sergeant in one case and for another purpose call him a sergeant?

Sir J. Grigg: Why do we not call a lance-corporal, a corporal?

Sir H. Williams: Why, for some purposes, do the War Office call a lance-sergeant a sergeant, and for other purposes make a differentiation?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member might just as well ask why we do not call a lance-corporal a corporal. He is a lance-corporal.

Bookstall (Parliament Square)

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now possible to remove the bookstall from Parliament Square without danger to the State.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend see that no men will be taken away from work on bomb-damaged houses to remove this structure?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that that question is a little unnecessary. We have a fairly clear idea of the priorities in the use of labour.

Discharge Certificates

Captain Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War if any decision has been arrived at as regards the wording of discharge certificates issued to soldiers who are discharged from the service on medical grounds.

Sir J. Grigg: Soldiers discharged from Army service on medical grounds have always been dealt with under King's Regulations paragraph 390 sub-para. (xvi)— and their discharge certificates marked with the words: —"Ceasing to fulfil Army physical requirements". In the past, soldiers in medical category C, for whom no suitable employment could be found in the Army, were discharged under sub-para. (xviii) "Services no longer required". They will in future be discharged under sub-para. (xvi) and their discharge certificates will be worded accordingly.

Mr. Crowder: Does that mean that if a man is discharged on account of wounds, or loss of a limb, it will be stated on his discharge certificate?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not sure, but I do not think so. The form is "Ceasing to fulfil Army physical requirements".

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend consider back-dating some of the discharge certificates for men who have been discharged because of wounds received in action who had the earlier rather opprobrious method of discharge?

Sir J. Grigg: I will consider whether that can be done. I think it will have to be on application, but I will certainly consider it.

Channel Island Personned (Home Posting)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that they have never been able to go home since the start of the war, he will reconsider his decision not to grant Channel Island born men priority of home posting on the liberation of these Islands.

Sir J. Grigg: Channel Islanders are serving in many units of the Army and I

regret that it would not be in the interests of the Army to withdraw them all from their present duties as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. Where there are special compassionate circumstances the usual conditions governing compassionate postings and compassionate leave will apply to these men.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that there are comparatively few Channel Islanders in the Army, that they are spread about among many units, and that they are in a peculiar position as compared with any other troops, having been cut off from their homes for the whole of the war?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think there is such a sharp distinction as my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. In any case, they are spread over many units, and to treat them all specially will be rather difficult.

Overseas Service (Home Postings and Leave)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that cases have occurred of officers, after having been warned for service with the C.M.F., being asked by the Adjutant-General's branch of his department to sign a document disclaiming any right to come home for three years; whether he is aware that in some cases this request has been made to officers who have already served abroad for six years and upwards with only brief periods at home; and whether he will cause the practice of making such requests to be discontinued.

Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of any such practice and if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind they will certainly be examined.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the probable reopening of leave for the Forces overseas in the not far distant future, he is satisfied that suitable accommodation will be available for all ranks who may be on leave in London.

Sir J. Grigg: I wish I could be as certain as my hon. and gallant Friend that it will shortly be possible to institute a system of ordinary leave for officers and men serving overseas in addition to the repatriation scheme now operating. I can, however, assure him that the ques-


tion of hostel accommodation is not being overlooked.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Would my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that accommodation is earmarked and is made available, against the time when large numbers of troops will be coming on leave?

Sir J. Grigg: I have already done so.

Discharged A.T.S. Personnel (Civilian Clothing)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the civilian clothing allowance issued to A.T.S. on discharge is to be increased to correspond with the improved scale of civilian clothing issuable to soldiers discharged since 16th October.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Since 16th October, auxiliaries discharged from the Service have been receiving £12 10s. 0d. to buy civilian clothes. No attempt is being made to introduce an issue in kind, and I hope hon. Members will agree with me that this is wise.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend take special steps so that this may be made known throughout the Commands, as the position is causing considerable anxiety?

Sir J. Grigg: I suspect that the Commands ought to know. They have certainly had the clearest indication of it, but I will undertake to inquire into the matter to see whether anything more is needed. I have not noticed that they are in the habit of not reading Regulations.

Requisitioned Agricultural Land (Release)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War why forms dated 20th September, 1944 are being circulated to landowners and occupiers under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts requisitioning land in a certain area for the purpose of training troops; and, as agriculture is prejudiced by land taken for this purpose and it was understood that when the land was first taken under the Acts it was for the purpose of training American troops, will he now release for urgent agricultural purposes all the land temporarily taken.

Sir J. Grigg: The training notices under Defence Regulation 52 in respect of this

area expired on 30th September. It then was and still is likely that it will be necessary to use this land for training either British or American troops, and the notices were consequently renewed. As my hon. Friend is aware, occupiers continue to cultivate land over which training rights have been secured under Defence Regulation 52, but I can assure my hon. Friend, as I did on 1st August, that these rights will be relinquished as soon as operations in north-west Europe make this possible.

War Gratuity

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of officers and other ranks are now being released from the Army almost penniless; and what payment is to be made by way of gratuity.

Sir J. Grigg: All officers and other ranks are given, on termination of service, a period of notice leave with full pay and allowances, except those who are specially released from the Army to take up civil employment or at their own request on compassionate grounds, and those who leave the Army because of unsatisfactory conduct. In present circumstances, it should not be difficult for them to find suitable employment within that period. As regards war gratuity I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Members for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) by the Prime Minister on 3rd October.

Mr. Liddall: In view of certain circumstances which have been brought to my notice, culminating in the suicide of an ex-Army officer because he was entirely without the means of rehabilitating himself, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done?

Sir J. Grigg: I would very much like to investigate the particular case which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Liddall: I will send my right hon. Friend particulars of it.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister consider giving them eight weeks, as is the case on demobilisation? If not, why not?

Sir J. Grigg: I think, generally speaking, but not quite universally, they are


to get the eight weeks, but if the hon. Member will put down a question. I will make the position quite clear, including the qualifications for that general practice.

Reservist (Recall to the Colours)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War why he recalled to the Colours a Reservist, an ex-member of the Palestine police, who had been blinded in one eye whilst on duty with that body and subsequently invalided out; and whether he is aware that this man when he was called up, was on a temporary visit to this country, although normally resident in Palestine where his wife still is.

Sir J. Grigg: This man was a regular soldier who was relegated to the Royal Army Reserve in March, 1938. This rendered him liable to recall to the colours at the outbreak of war and by the operation of the Military and Air Forces (Prolongation of Service) Act, 1939, he would have been held to serve in the Army until the end of the emergency. This liability was not cancelled by the fact that he joined the Palestine Police Force in 1938 and was granted permission to live abroad so that he could serve with that force. He left the Palestine Police Force in September, 1943, and became liable for recall to the colours as soon as he returned to the United Kingdom. He was medically examined and in view of the disability from which he suffered he was graded in category A.4.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Palestine police are not a part of the British Army but are an Allied military force? Is it customary to recall to the colours reservists who are serving in an Allied military force and who have been discharged through-wounds?

Sir J. Grigg: The legal position is quite clear, that service in the Palestine military force does not cancel the reserve obligation.

Mr. Smith: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Dependants' Allowance

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there is considerable feeling among the soldiers who joined the Army before the war in having to prove that during the period from 3rd March, 1939, they were contributing towards dependant's maintenance before they can get dependant's allowance; and will he consider removing this barrier if the soldier is making a contributory allotment now.

Sir J. Grigg: The dependants' allowance scheme was introduced in order to assist soldiers who, prior to their enlistment, had been supporting dependants to a greater extent than they could afford to continue out of their Army pay, and where, without an allowance, hardship would result to the dependant. It is an essential condition for the award of a dependant's allowance that the dependant must have been in receipt of genuine regular support or benefit from the soldier before the date on which he joined the colours. My hon. Friend's proposal would entail a complete reversal of this policy and it could not be confined to soldiers who joined before the war.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many men joined the Service prior to the war because of economic circumstances such as unemployment, and could not send anything to their households, and that the position is therefore difficult? Is not the time coming when the Minister should reconsider that decision?

Sir J. Grigg: That would require radical alteration of a scheme which does not affect only the Army. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, in cases where the circumstances of the family—that is to say of the dependants—have materially changed there is eligibility for a war service grant.

Mr. Tinker: We have made many changes during the war for the benefit of the people who are fighting for us. Will not the Minister consider this point again?

Sir J. Grigg: If my recollection serves me aright the point was carefully considered after a deputation of Members of this House met the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not very many months ago.

Requisitioned Houses (Release)

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for War how many dwelling houses, requisitioned for the use of his Department, were standing empty on 1st October; and whether he has any statement to make about their derequisitioning.

Sir J. Grigg: At one time and another my Department has had to requisition something well over 200,000 properties. It would I think take more time and labour than could easily be justified to collect the figures the hon. and gallant Member seeks. Derequisitioning is, however, going on throughout the country as fast as circumstances and the staff available permit. I have personally given orders that so far as dwelling-houses are concerned at any rate the work is to be accelerated to the maximum possible extent.

Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, where houses are no longer occupied, adequate steps are being taken to prevent further damage occurring, pending derequisition?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a different question, and I would be glad if my hon. Friend would put it down.

Mr. Thorne: Are any of these unoccupied houses in constituencies where there is a great shortage of houses?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot answer that question offhand, but I have not the slightest doubt that some of them are. I know that my Department are in constant touch with Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, and have released a great deal of accommodation.

Demobilisation (Widows with Dependent Children)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, for demobilisation purposes, widows with dependent children rank as married women.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I have been asked to reply. I assume my hon. Friend refers to re-allocation between the Forces and industry during the interim period. For this purpose widows with dependent children will not rank as married women, but they will be eligible to be considered sympathetically for release on compassionate grounds

Miss Ward: Would not my hon. Friend agree that married women with no children whose husbands are having to serve in the war, and widows with dependent children are not quite in the same category?

Mr. De la Bère: Is there not too much allocation? The matter ought to be gone into.

Western Front (Short Leave)

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of introducing a system of short leave on the lines of the last war for men fighting on the Western Front and also arrange for the necessary transport, train and boat, to enable the leave to be spent at their homes.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement I circulated on 26th September in answer to a number of hon. Members, and to the statement I made on the Adjournment on 12th October.

Mr. Bellenger: As that answer, I think, dealt with short leave—48 hoursgcould the right hon. Gentleman give privilege leave of seven days at least, which is, I think, implied in the Question, so that men of the British Liberation Army could come home?

Sir J. Grigg: My answer dealt with the question of leave generally, and was not in relation to short leave or any other period of leave.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED FORCES, AUSTRIA (CURRENCY)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that the currency to be issued to Allied forces in Austria will not be the same as the currency issued to troops in Germany.

Sir J. Grigg: I can assure my hon. Friend that the financial consequences of the Moscow declaration to separate Austria from Germany have not been overlooked in making the plans for the occupation of Austria. That is all I can say at present.

Mr. Strauss: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say more, as there is no military secret about this and it is a matter which is arousing considerable anxiety among many people?

Sir. J. Grigg: It is not only military matters which should not be the subject of undesirable speculation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTURED GERMAN DOCUMENTS

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange to place on sale the folders, booklets and maps, captured from the Germans in Brussels, as souvenirs of the war, the proceeds to be given to the Red Cross.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for specimens of the German maps and guide books, intended for the invasion of England, recently found in Brussels, to be on view in the Library.

Sir J. Grigg: None of this material has yet been brought to this country and no decision has been taken as to its disposal.

Sir S. Reed: Does not my right hon. Friend see that, apart from their souvenir value, these booklets are a great warning to the public of the dangers they have gone through, and the dangers which may recur?

Sir J. Grigg: I would like to look at them first.

Sir A. Pownall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the suggestion in my Question when he has these documents?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly bear it in mind, but I would like to see the documents first.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (REPATRIATION)

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have been made in advance for repatriating our prisoners of war in Germany directly after the cessation of hostilities; whether they will be informed of such arrangements in advance; and whether they will be kept the minimum possible time in prisoners of war camps while such arrangements are being put in force.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to all three parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is "Yes," Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War why Italian prisoners of war are permitted to overcrowd omnibuses and the cinema at Coleshill, Warwickshire, so as frequently to exclude residents from seats; and whether he will abate this nuisance.

Sir J. Grigg: Italian prisoners of war are forbidden to use public omnibuses in off-duty periods and camp police patrol the area to prevent any infringement of this rule. I am inquiring whether this rule has recently been broken. About 60 Italian co-operators at a time visit the cinema at Coleshill. The number allowed is fixed by the camp commandant in consultation with the manager of the cinema.

Sir J. Mellor: Why should these Italians be pampered in this way before they have worked their passage? Why should not Coleshill be put out of bounds to the Italians?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that they are working their passage and that access to certain public conveniences in this country was one of the concomitants of working their passage.

Mr. Graham White: I should like to ask whether another aspect of this matter has been brought to the Minister's notice, which is that non-collaborators are now jeering at those who have joined us and are saying: "This is what you get"?

Sir J. Grigg: I am well aware that whatever the War Office does is always wrong. For many months we were badgered to enable these Italians to do more to assist the war effort. As soon as we take steps for that to happen, we are badgered for allowing them to have rather better than prisoner-of-war treatment.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether adequate facilities are now given for the supply of non-Nazi German literature to German prisoners of war; and why permission has been refused to a request to present copies of talks by Thomas Mann, addressed by him from America by radio to listeners in Germany.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I have been asked to reply. Suitable non-Nazi German literature is being supplied


to German prisoners of war. There is no trace of the receipt of any request to present copies of talks by Thomas Mann to prisoner-of-war camps.

Mr. John Dugdale: Are there facilities for these men to read such literature; and are steps taken to see that they are not prevented from doing so, by their N.C.O.'s, many of whom are Nazis?

Mr. Harvey: Will there be any objection to the works of Thomas Mann being supplied to prisoners of war?

Mr. Thurtle: That is hypothetical. When we receive such requests we will consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Rosneath Estate (House Tenants)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Rosneath Estate has changed hands on two occasions since 1941, that on both occasions tenants of dwelling-houses have been faced with the request to purchase their dwellings, that the price asked on the first occasion was 20 years' purchase; that the new proprietor through a firm of Liverpool solicitors has repeated the request; that some of the dwellings are tenanted by men serving overseas; and will he take steps to safeguard the occupiers from eviction if others purchase their homes.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am aware that the estate of Rosneath, Dumbartonshire, was sold in 1941 and has again been sold since that date. I am informed that after each sale, the tenants of dwelling-houses and other properties on the Estate were invited to purchase the premises they occupied, but that no fixed prices were specified. On the first occasion several small houses were sold. Complete information about the tenants is not readily available but the mother of a prisoner of war in Germany is known to be the tenant of one house. As regards the last part of the Question, if, as I assume, the houses are controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts the tenants will be protected against eviction in terms of these Acts notwithstanding any transfer of ownership.

Mr. McKinlay: May I take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that there was

no need for Hitler to invade this country —he could have bought it? [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] It is all right; your friends are not mine. May I also take it that there is no need for this bogus speculation in property in Scotland by people from South of the Border, with war-swollen profits?

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the owners of Rosneath Estate ignore requests from tenants to have repairs carried out on their dwellings, thus depriving them of the full use of the accommodation; and if he will take steps to have these repairs carried out.

Mr. Johnston: No information has come either to the Scottish Office or the local authority about the cases referred to, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with any evidence in his possession on the subject I shall have inquiries made.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware I have been complaining about this for almost two years, and that this firm have a new technique? They simply ignore letters sent to them asking them to execute repairs.

Mr. Johnston: That is not the point in the Question, but neither the local authority nor the agricultural executive committee has any information as to the allegations in the Question. As I say, if my hon. Friend will give me information I will have inquiries made.

Prestwick Airport

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has given, or the action he has taken, in regard to the memorandum he has received from the Scottish Council of Industry on the subject of retaining Prestwick airport as a post-war Atlantic terminal.

Mr. Johnston: I received last week the submission referred to, and I am giving it careful consideration with a view to bringing the arguments and claims in favour of Prestwick to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation, and other Ministers concerned.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend give this proposal his enthusiastic support, in view of its vital importance to the future prosperity of Scotland and to civil aviation?

Mr. Johnston: I have already indicated my enthusiastic support.

Housing Policy

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the housing policy of his Department will meet the immediate needs of post-war Scotland.

Mr. Johnston: The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee's Report places Scotland's housing needs at 500,000 and our specially urgent requirements at 166,000 houses. It will take us three years, building at double the pre-war rate, to reach the latter figure. But the Government's policy through prefabrication and building up a large labour force is to reach that target in the first three years after the war.

Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend has not, if I may say so with respect, answered my Question. I asked him if he was satisfied.

Major Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to remove all the present handicaps to private enterprise in housing?

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the committee he set up to inquire into the question of teachers' salaries have completed their work; and when is their Report likely to be published.

Mr. Johnston: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the National Joint Council composed of representatives of the education authorities and the teaching profession with a neutral chairman. The Council have not yet completed their consideration of scales of salaries for teachers, but they are aware of the urgency of the subject matter of their deliberations.

Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish teachers have very reluctantly refused to embark on any propaganda and have been waiting very patiently for this Report? Will my right hon. Friend do his best to hurry it up, so that teachers will know exactly how they stand with regard to the question of teachers' salaries?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, that is true, but as my hon. Friend is aware, half the

council is composed of teachers' representatives, and the other half of representatives of the local authorities. I will certainly see that at the earliest possible moment a conclusion is reached.

Evacuated Schoolchildren

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to have evacuated schoolchildren returned to their home towns and thereby relieve the pressure on county education committees.

Mr. Johnston: Arrangements for the return of children who went out with their mothers or other adults are already in operation, and instructions were issued to local authorities yesterday about the return of unaccompanied children to every district in Great Britain except London and the South-East of England.

Education (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give a date for the introduction of the Education (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I hope to introduce the Education (Scotland) Bill before the close of the present Session. I propose that the Bill should be given a First Reading only, so that before it is reintroduced next Session there will be an opportunity for full consideration and discussion of the Government's proposals by all parties.

Prison Warders (Pension Increases)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the paying out of increases in pension rates under the recent Pensions (Increase) Act to retired prison warders of the Scottish Prison Service.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. Pensions of Scottish prison warders are paid by the Paymaster-General, through the agency of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. The Paymaster-General assesses the amount of the increases under the recent Pensions (Increase) Act. These pensioners are civil servants and are being dealt with by the procedure applicable to their case. The increases payable under Section 2 of the Act have been paid and the claims from the pensioners for the further increases to which they may


be entitled under Section 1 of the Act are being examined. Payment will be made as quickly as staff difficulties permit.

Mr. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the time in which he hopes this process will be completed?

Mr. Assheton: It is being done as quickly as possible, but I hope the hon. Member will bear in mind that these payments are retrospective, so injustice will not be done.

Mr. Brown: The point is that these fellows may die before they get the money.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Ballotees (Trade Union Membership)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to threats made against young men ordered to work in the mines who have omitted or declined to join a trade union; and what action he proposes to take to prevent the continuation of such acts of intimidation.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): My attention has been drawn to one case in which a letter sent by a local official of a trade union to a ballotee appears to have been indiscreetly worded, and my regional officers at once made the position clear to the union concerned. I know of no cases of intimidation but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any in mind, I should be glad to look into them.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of a letter that was sent to young conscripted miners commencing "Dear Friend," which went on to say that if they did not join their trade union "unfriendly actions may be taken against them"? That is signed by the Committee. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these young men will probably only be in the mines for the duration of the war? Why, then, should they join the union?

Major Lloyd George: As I pointed out in my answer, my attention has been called to one case, to which the hon. and gallant Member has just referred. There are 24,000 ballotees in the mines to-day, and one case really does not worry me very much.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the miners have done everything possible to make the Bevin boys comfortable?

Distribution (Zoning System)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the zoning system of coal distribution is still working satisfactorily; and whether any shortage of supply has impeded war manufacturers this autumn.

Major Lloyd George: The system of planned programming of coal supplies has proved most successful; the answer to the second part of the Question is, No, Sir.

Voluntary Absenteeism

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether absenteeism in the mines is more noticeable on any one day of the week than on any other; and to what extent the operation of Pay as you earn is a factor in producing it.

Major Lloyd George: Owing to the strain on colliery clerical staffs in furnishing such information, I have not attempted to collect any statistics later than those relating to December, 1943, and January, 1944.Those figures are included in Table 8 of the Statistical Digest (Cmd. 6538), and show that for underground workers the rate of voluntary absenteeism is much heavier on Mondays (including the Sunday night shift) and on Saturdays. I have no statistical information about the effect of the Pay as you earn system, but I am aware of the view that the introduction of this system has been a contributory factor in the recent increase in voluntary absenteeism.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is it a fact that the first and last days of the week are those upon which there is much absenteeism?

Accidents

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what has been the number of accidents in the coalmines of the country in 1938 and 1939, in each complete year during the war and since 1st January, 1944.

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


Number of persons Killed and injured (disabled for more Man three days) by accidents in and about mines under the Coal Mines Act in Great Britain during the years 1938 to 1944


Year.
Number killed.
Number injured.


1938
858
131,776


1939
783
134,072


1940
923
146,388


1941
925
158,445


1942
877
166,639


1943
713
173,716


1944 (1st January to 14th October).*
492
Not yet available.


* The number of persons killed in the corresponding period of 1943 was 568.

Opencast Coal (Production)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the average monthly output of opencast coal in the coal years 1942–43, 1943–44 and 1944–45.

Major Lloyd George: The average monthly production of opencast coal during the coal years 1942–43, 1943–44 and in the first five months of 1944–45 was 175,500 tons, 460,600 tons and 947,800 tons respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the report of the expert committee appointed to examine the project for a barrage and hydro-electric installation on the River Severn has yet been received; if it will be published; and whether the scheme will be treated as one of urgency.

Major Lloyd George: I have now received the report, and am arranging for it to be published as soon as possible. Meanwhile, it is being very carefully studied; but, as the proposals raise some very serious issues, I can give no indication when I shall be able to announce a Government decision on the project.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS SUPPLIES (THERMAL VALUE)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the Act of Parliament which stipulates that gas supplied by the gas companies

throughout the country shall be of a declared value, although the gas is sold by the cubic foot, he will give an assurance that there is an adequate check on the various undertakings throughout the country to ensure that the consumer receives the regulation number of British thermal units per cubic foot; and what the average number of British thermal units per cubic foot is throughout the country.

Major Lloyd George: The question how far the machinery for testing the thermal value of gas is adequate depends on the extent to which local authorities or consumers exercise their powers to secure the appointment of gas examiners and on the efficiency with which the tests are made. I am not entirely satified with the present arrangements, which are now, in common with other questions relating to gas, being investigated by the Committee of Inquiry into the Gas Industry. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, the declared calorific value at which gas is sold varies considerably from undertaking to undertaking, but the average is about 470 British thermal units per cubic foot.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I welcome his statement that he is not entirely satisfied, because I am not satisfied at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (REORGANISATION)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to secure the reorganisation of the generation and distribution of electricity; and when he will be able to make a statement of the Government's policy in this matter.

Major Lloyd George: Proposals for the reconstruction of the electricity industry are being considered by the Government, but I am unable to say when I shall be able to make a statement on the Government's policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI CATION ACT

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if, in pursuance of their undertaking, the Government have reconsidered the position of Members affected by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1944; and


when he hopes to be in a position to make a statement on this subject.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The undertaking of the Government to which my hon. Friend refers was given in debate by the Foreign Secretary, as Leader of the House, on with February, 1944, and is as follows:
I undertake that between now and the next occasion we will consider all that has been said in the Debate, and the Cabinet will go into the whole question. I cannot say what will be the position a year from now. The Government may or may not need these Members, but if we do decide that we need this Measure again we shall come and state our case to the House. I cannot say whether we shall need it or not: that depends upon the course of events in the next is months."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 11th February, 1944; Vol. 396, c. 2100.]
I can assure the House that there has been no departure from the above position, which seems to have foreseen every possible contingency. The answer to the second part of the Question must depend on what happens in the world, abroad and at home, between now and the time when this Measure expires, namely, 5th March,
1945.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be very great disappointment in the House if we are merely presented with the same Bill again next year?

The Prime Minister: There Might be disappointment in some quarters: there might be conviction that it is necessary in others.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY WELFARE, INDIA (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Astor: asked the Prime Minister the exact division of responsibility between the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War as regards the welfare of British troops in India.

The Prime Minister: It is impossible to define such matters exactly, because the political boundaries of India do not coincide with those of the India Command. The Secretary of State for India is primarily responsible for the provision of welfare and amenities for British troops when serving in India. He is assisted by the Secretary of State for War in the provision of such welfare, personnel, and

stores as are beyond the capacity of India to provide locally. The Secretary of State for War has a direct concern in the welfare of British troops, wherever they are and lays down the scales of amenities which he considers appropriate for those in India. Welfare and amenities for British troops in the South East Asia Command, but serving elsewhere than in India, are a responsibility of the Secretary of State for War. Here the Secretary of State for India assists him, because it is necessary now to rely largely on resources from India.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present system has not produced satisfactory results, from the point of view of the troops; and will he, therefore, consider whether there is any way in which it can be improved?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that it has not produced satisfactory results—at least, that the results have not been entirely satisfactory. Whether those results arise out of the inevitable overlap between the functions of the two Secretaries of State is not a matter which can be pronounced upon, but we have already taken steps to send a member of the Government —the Under-Secretary of State for India—out; and he is going round all the canteens and N.A.A.F.I.'s, and generally moving about among the troops.

Mr. Bellenger: There is no N.A.A.F.I. in India.

The Prime Minister: Whatever is the substitute for it. The Under-Secretary of State is going round to make sure that these men have the services of which they are particularly in need, and we are doing the very best we can do. He also has particular authority to communicate directly with me; so that if there is anything which wants a helping hand from the War Cabinet, it can be promptly given. I can assure the House that I am much concerned that this matter has not reached a higher level up to the present time.

Mr. A. Bevan: The House, I am sure, will be delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is giving his personal attention to the matter. Is he aware that Members are receiving letters from those men who transferred from the British Army to the Indian Army, who are entirely bewildered as to their status? They do not know


whether this House is their protector, or whether the Indian Government is their protector. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that we still protect those men who have transferred to the Indian Army?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we do protect those men; and that also applies in connection with votes and so on, about which the utmost care has been taken.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving an actual priority in the matter of welfare to troops who have given longer periods of service?

The Prime Minister: It would be very difficult to go about the Army and find out which of the troops have had the longest service, to give them priority. We have to work by theatres. We have every determination that the men in India and in the South East Asia Command, where there is so much disease, malaria and so on, shall not be neglected in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION (DEREQUISITIONING)

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to prepare for the long-deferred relaxation and holidays of civilians and demobilised Service personnel, Service Departments will be ordered to derequisition as soon as possible holiday camps and similar accommodation now in their occupation.

The Prime Minister: A large number of properties have been released already, and it is intended to release property held on requisition as soon as possible. Nothing in this policy, however, must hamper the prosecution of the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (POST-WAR POLICY)

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been taken as to the future programme of work put forward by the Forestry Commission.

Lady Apsley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make any statement on the intentions of the Government with regard

to large scale measures of reafforestation at an early date.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I have been asked to reply. Post-war forestry policy is now under consideration. The Government are not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

Mr. Parker: When are the Government likely to make any decision on the subject?

Sir J. Anderson: Very soon, I think.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any truth in the rumour that forestry is to be handed over to the Department of Agriculture? If so, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Forestry Commission, on the whole, have done exceptionally good work?

Sir J. Anderson: I cordially agree with the sentiment which my hon. Friend has just expressed. As to the other matter, I have said that the Government are not in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Enemy-Occupied Countries (Sterling Balances)

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the altered conditions on the continent of Europe and the hardships which British subjects in enemy-occupied countries have suffered as a result of having their sterling balances frozen, he will review the whole position in the near future.

Sir J. Anderson: The question of the release of money and property of British subjects resident in liberated Allied territory is under consideration.

Airports (Customs Inspections)

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the present system of customs inspection at airports; and, in particular, whether a customs inspection was carried out on Mr. Refitt's baggage on his recent return from France.

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, having regard to the existing conditions. The answer to the second part is that the


Customs have normally no reason for asking the identity of passengers; and, therefore, have no record to show whether Mr. Refitt's baggage was examined or not.

Mr. Turton: Is it the position that a hitch-hiker can escape any Customs examination, owing to the existing conditions? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman alter that arrangement?

Sir J. Anderson: The existing conditions undoubtedly present some practical difficulties; but we are doing our best to ensure that there is no evasion.

British Currency (Decimal System)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether further consideration is being given to the use of the decimal system in British currency, with a view to aiding our country to meet foreign competition in the export field.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I doubt if such a change would be of material assistance against foreign competition in the export field, and there are weighty objections to it from other points of view.

Gift Parcels (Taxation)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what duties and taxes are charged on gifts sent to relatives by troops serving overseas; and what concessions are made.

Sir J. Anderson: Gifts sent to relatives by troops serving overseas are liable on importation to Customs Duty and Purchase Tax at the rates prescribed by law, but, as I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for York (Captain Lord Irwin), on 10th October, I have authorised a concession which permits any member of the Forces serving overseas to send home each year goods to a value of £8 free of Customs Duty and Purchase Tax, subject to certain conditions. Details of the concession have been circulated to all overseas Commands.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this, in fact, operates in all countries overseas, because I have had numbers of letters from troops serving in Italy who say that they do not get any such concession? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

Sir J. Anderson: I would like to look into that; I do not know the answer.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not also a fact that the Americans are exempt from Customs duty on goods they bring into this country?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know what the American arrangements are.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEND-LEASE AND RECIPROCAL AID (ACCOUNTING)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in arriving at the totals of Lend-Lease goods supplied to the United Kingdom, any credit is passed to this country in respect of the large sums returned to the U.S. Treasury under re-negotiated contracts.

Sir J. Anderson: I am not in a position to state how the receipts of the nature referred to by the hon. Member are dealt with in the accounts of the United States Government. The basis of Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid has been to supply goods and services, and particulars of the costs incurred by the United States Government in providing supplies to the United Kingdom under Lend-Lease are not furnished to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Etherton: If the costs are not supplied, does not the present system give a false impression of the total?

Sir J. Anderson: It does mean that such figures as are available may not be complete; but we have always made it quite clear that accounting for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid is not on a cash basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE CITIZENS, UNITED KINGDOM (TAXATION)

Professor Savory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority a worker from a neutral country earning high wages in Great Britain, from which Income Tax has been deducted under the pay as you earn system, can demand a refund of all these deductions provided he returns to the neutral country within the period of six months; and whether this process of avoiding Income Tax can be indefinitely repeated.

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind individuals coming to this country from Eire. I must remind


my hon. Friend that the Double Taxation Agreement, made between this country and Eire in 1926 and confirmed by Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1926, covers all income and provides that individuals resident in one country and not resident in the other country are liable to tax only in the country of residence, and that companies trading in both countries are liable to tax only in the country in which they are controlled. Accordingly, a labourer from Eire who proves that he was not resident in the United Kingdom for a particular Income Tax year can obtain repayment of United Kingdom Income Tax deducted for that year from his earnings under the P.A.Y.E. system.
My hon. Friend appears to be under the impression that residence in the United Kingdom can be avoided if the labourer is not in this country for a continuous period of six months. This is not correct —the test is whether the total time spent by him in the United Kingdom in a particular Income Tax year amounts to six months, and no repayment of any tax deducted under Pay-as-you-earn would be made until it is established that the labourer was not resident for the year to which the tax relates.

Professor Savory: Cutting out all circumlocution, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree with this—that Patrick from Ulster pays everything, and Patrick from Eire pays nothing to the British Government?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I could not possibly agree with that statement.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: May I ask whether the Government will consider extending the excellent principle outlined in the right hon. Gentleman's reply to our Allies, particularly the United States?

Sir J. Anderson: That is quite another question, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, we have quite recently entered upon discussions with the United States, from which I hope a satisfactory agreement will result.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Export Credit Facilities

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which countries export credits will be made available; on what scale and from what date.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I have been asked to reply. Guarantees under the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, are at present available to United Kingdom exporters in respect of exports to any country with which trade is allowed within the limit of liability of £75,000,000 laid down by the Act. As I have previously informed the House, I hope to be able to introduce legislation next Session to extend export credits facilities.

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that exporters cannot plan their future until they have got a financial policy prepared by the Government?

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is intended that export credits shall be made available for shipbuilding.

Mr. Dalton: I have been asked to reply. Guarantees in respect of ships built in United Kingdom yards for export are not excluded under the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, but such guarantees must be given with great discretion, at any rate until our own merchant fleet has been fully re-established after the war.

Rubber (Surgical Gloves)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increased supplies of rubber, he will increase the allotment for the provision of surgical gloves.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): I have been asked to reply. Surgical gloves have to be made partly of natural rubber, supplies of which have not increased. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for the production of these gloves, that he is not aware of any substantial volume of complaint that supplies are insufficient to meet essential civil needs.

Post-War Models (Prototypes)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received from manufacturers for permission to develop prototypes of post-war models and for the release of material and designers for this purpose; how many have been granted and how many have been refused.

Mr. Dalton: Three hundred and fifty applications have been received —about one-half during the past three weeks—for various facilities to prepare for peacetime production, a high proportion relating to the production of prototypes. One hundred and fifty of these have already been granted, 11 have been refused for the time being on the advice of the Supply Departments concerned, but these will be reconsidered later.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of what has happened to the remaining 100 or so which are not dealt with in his reply?

Mr. Dalton: These are being considered in consultation with the Supply Departments concerned. I am taking special measures to speed up the procedure, but most of these applications have only come in during the last three weeks.

Government Factories (Lease to Private Owners)

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade what statement he has to make with reference to a petition to him signed by 101 employees of the British Tool and Engineering Company, Limited, Wolverhampton, protesting against the leasing of factories built by public money to private owners.

Mr. Dalton: I have already made statements on this subject on a number of occasions in this House, the most recent being on Friday last.

Mr. Mander: Is it not possible that some of these factories might be usefully operated by the Government for the manufacture of certain articles required in large quantities by the public, and will he keep an open mind about them?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but the position is that those factories, when they are no longer required for Government use, will be dealt with in the manner indicated in the statement I made last Friday. I cannot add to that statement, but perhaps my hon. Friend will let his constituents see it.

Mr. Mander: I have seen it, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of the use of some of these factories handed over by the Government?

Commercial Exports (Sterling Value)

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the total sterling value of commercial exports from the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., respectively, in each year from 1938 onwards, excluding Lend-Lease.

Mr. Dalton: I am circulating these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with a note on certain considerations which must be borne in mind in interpreting them.

Following are the figures:


Exports from the United Kingdom excluding re-exports


(Value in million £)


Year







1938
…
…
…
…
471


1939*
…
…
…
…
440*


1940*
…
…
…
…
411*


1941*
…
…
…
…
365*


1942
…
…
…
…
269


1943
…
…
…
…
232


* including munitions.




Total exports from the United States, including re-exports but excluding Lend-Lease goods


(Approx. value in million £)


Year







1938
…
…
…
…
633


1939
…
…
…
…
716


1940
…
…
…
…
1,000


1941
…
…
…
…
1,092


1942
…
…
…
…
780


1943
…
…
…
…
646

Notes.

(a) The United Kingdom figures for the war years include, in addition to munitions for the years 1939, 1940 and 1941, goods, other than military stores proper, shipped for purposes connected with the prosecution of the war and which cannot be classed as "commercial" in the normal sense. The figures include also exports under Reciprocal Aid.

(b) The U.S. figures include military stores and strategic commodities exported other than under Lend-Lease.

Textile Industry

Captain Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in order that the textile industry may achieve a 50 per cent., or any, increase in exports, he will arrange for it to have facilities for conducting experimental work, in view of the fact that, in an average mill, an allocation as low as one half per cent. of normal yarn would suffice; that this could reasonably be provided by the spinners without interfering with war production; and that in most mills the executive staff would, if labour were not available, carry out the necessary operations;
(2) whether he is aware that manufacturers are encouraged to advertise their products in overseas journals and that when, as a result thereof, inquiries are received by textile manufacturers, they are unable to quote terms or forward samples in view of the failure of the Government to allow them reasonable facilities to conduct experimental work; and whether he will take steps to remedy this position.

Mr. Dalton: I have arranged for the Cotton Controller to issue licences for the use of cotton and rayon yarn for experimental work. But supplies of yarn are still insufficient to meet essential needs at home and in the Empire, and only very small quantities can be spared at present for this purpose.

Captain Prescott: Is the House to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that quantities of cotton yarn will be available?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly, subject to the control in question.

Moscow Fair (British Goods)

Mr. Oswald Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that British products are well represented at the fair to be held at Moscow next year.

Mr. Dalton: I have asked His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow for full particulars about this Fair, and the opportunities which it may afford for the display of British goods.

Retail Trade Licences

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take in a case where an application has been refused for a retail trade licence under the Location of Retail Businesses Orders, and the applicant opens and stocks the proposed shop with articles related to the trade in which he had been turned down, such as cycle tyres, etc., radio valves, and offers these for sale to the public on condition that they are fitted on the premises, so as to be recognised as a repairing business out-with the scope of the Orders.

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be much obliged if he would send me the details.

Mr. Fraser: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a position has been created such as is alleged in the Question, and is he able to do anything about the rest of the matter?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend's Question is in rather general terms and I would much rather deal with the matter in the light of particular cases. If he has a particular case, I will undertake to look into it.

Second-hand Motor Cars (Prices)

Colonel Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the Report made to the Central Price Regulation Committee by the North Midland Price Regulation Committee in connection with present prices for second-hand motor cars; whether he has obtained the views of the motor trade upon this Report; whether he has considered the recommendations of the Committee set up by the Minister of War Transport, by whom the matter was investigated; and whether he can now make any statement thereupon.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now prepared to take steps to control the price of second-hand motor cars.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. I have not yet seen the report of the North Midland Price Regulation Committee, although I have noticed the references which have been made to it in the Press. My Noble Friend gave careful consideration to the report made to him in 1942 on the prices then being charged for second-hand cars and other vehicles, and since then he has had the matter under constant review. As a result he is by no means convinced that my hon. Friend's proposal for a control of prices would achieve the end in view, namely, that second-hand cars should be available at prices lower than those now being paid.

Colonel Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the President of the Board of Trade to see the recommendation sent by this Committee, and can he say whether the Committee of his own Department which has sat upon this particular matter has come to any conclusion?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I certainly hope to see the report in due course, and with regard to the second part of the supplementary question the report made to my Noble Friend is purely on the facts of the prices being charged in 1942.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Parliamentary Secretary put on a ceiling, namely, that obtaining on 31st March, 1939, like the Uthwatt Report?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUBSIDIES (COST OF LIVING)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the increase in the cost-of-living index if the subsidies on bread, milk, sugar, eggs, etc., amounting to £214,000,000 in the present financial year, were withdrawn and prices remain at their present level.

Mr. Assheton: If the food subsidies were withdrawn, while current prices and margins were paid to producers and distributors, so that retail prices rose by the amount of these subsidies, the effect would be that the cost-of-living index would rise from its present position of 30 per cent. above the level of September, 1939, to 46 per cent. above that level, or, what is the same thing, from 101 per cent. above the level of July, 1914, to 126 per cent. above that level.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to continue these subsidies indefinitely? Is it their intention to continue this artificial position?

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid that is quite another question.

Later—

Mr. Craven-Ellis: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, regarding the reply given to my Question No. 60? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied to my supplementary question, "That is another question." It was obviously another question, but I maintain that it was an appropriate question and that a reply should have been given.

Mr. Speaker: It does not matter what the hon. Member maintains; that was the answer which was given to him. It cannot be changed now.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL ALLOWANCES (DISABLED EX-SERVICEMEN)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will instruct his regional officers to give special concessions to disabled and invalided ex-Service officers and men who apply for petrol allowances in order to carry on small businesses.

Major Lloyd George: A petrol allowance is granted to any disabled person to enable him to carry on a business where it can be shown that a car is necessary for this purpose.

Lady Apsley: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he will press these facts home to his representatives in the South-West region?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly look into that.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister also look into the Midland region, where ex-Servicemen have not had the treatment they should have had?

Mr. Magnay: And will the Minister also look into the Northern Division?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (CAPTURED GERMAN DOCUMENTS)

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will call the attention of the Government of Eire to the German documents recently discovered near Brussels proving that the German military authorities were making preparations for the invasion of Eire in August, 1940, many months after Mr. de Valera had informed the German Minister in Dublin that Eire would maintain her neutrality; and whether he will invite the Government of Eire to break off diplomatic relations with Germany.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): My Noble Friend does not feel that any further results could be achieved at the present time by such an approach as is suggested in my hon. Friend's question. The discovery and nature of the documents to which the question refers have been reported in the Press, and the Eire Government are therefore presumably aware of them. Moreover, the views of His Majesty's Government in the United


Kingdom are, of course, already well known to the Eire Government as a result of representations which were recently made by the United States and the United Kingdom with regard to the removal of Axis missions from Dublin.

Professor Savory: Will my hon. Friend not bring home to the Government of Eire the fact that they were completely duped by the Germans, and that they have only been protected by the British Fleet from invasion, and from the same fate as Holland, Belgium, Norway and Denmark?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I think my reply will make that quite clear to the Eire Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I would like to asked the Prime Minister a question about Business and, if I may be allowed, to welcome him back. With regard to the meetings in Moscow, when is it proposed that a statement, if any, should be made; and will the right hon. Gentleman also state the Business for Friday which was left undetermined last week?

The Prime Minister: The Business of the House on Friday will be as follows:
Further consideration of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords], if not previously disposed of. Afterwards there will be an opportunity, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, for a Debate to take place on Housing Repairs in London and South-East England.
With regard to the first question which my right hon. Friend has asked me, I shall be quite ready to make a shortish statement to the House at the beginning of Business on Friday. It will not be of a controversial nature and, I trust, will not lead to a request for a Debate, because we had a Debate only a short time ago, and the King's Speech always lies ahead of us. But I shall be quite ready to make a statement, which in a way will be complementary to what I said the last time, and bring matters into it of which the House should be informed.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? I think the House would prefer a short statement on Friday without Debate, but there might be a statement made which hon.

Members, on reflection, might think should give rise to a Debate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind to that possibility.

The Prime Minister: It seems to me that I ought to close my mouth and not my mind.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the purpose of making a statement on the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow? Presumably it is not to tell us how well he enjoyed himself there, but to mention some matter of public interest and public importance that was dealt with there. If that be so, should not the House be given an opportunity of expressing their views?

The Prime Minister: I am very much in the hands of the House. If the general feeling is that I should not make a statement, I will not attempt to intrude myself.

Mr. McGovern: Why is the right hon. Gentleman postponing a short statement until Friday? May we take it that he has nothing to tell us of having achieved anything in Moscow?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I was considering how best I could impart the greatest amount of information without committing an indiscretion in any direction or trenching on controversial matters.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the Prime Minister aware that the vast majority of the House are most anxious to hear the result of his remarkable journey to Russia, and that we want to know as much as possible of his experiences?

Mr. A. Bevan: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to make his statement on Friday in such a form that, if the House wishes to do so, it may be able to discuss it? It does not necessarily follow that the House will want to discuss it. It may agree with him that the statement is entirely non-controversial and purely informative. On the other hand, this being a controversial Chamber, they may not share his view, and will he therefore make it in a form so that the House can have a Debate if it wishes to do so?

The Prime Minister: I was not proposing to make a statement on the Adjournment, but to make it at the beginning of Business. Some question is often put on those occasions, but there is no Question before the


House on which a Debate could be founded.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are some of us, in spite of the suggestions which have been made as to what he should do, and how he should curtail his observations, who are anxious that he should say exactly what he pleases about what took place in Moscow, and the more he says the better we shall like it? As to a Debate, that will depend on whether or not we like what the right hon. Gentleman says.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill,

Amendments to,—

Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

REPORT [20th October]

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1944

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,250,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

12.6 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: This is a Supplementary Vote of Credit for the sum of £1,250,000,000. Since during the five years of war we have expended £24,000,000,000 for war purposes, I would like to ask how much of that we have been able to meet out of current taxation, how much has gone to what I call the National Debt, and how much the National Debt has now increased over what it was at the beginning of the war. I would also like to know what that burden means on each individual in the State, because, in a matter like this, it is just as well that every citizen should know the expenditure which has to be borne by individuals for war purposes. I do not object, indeed I agree, to everything required to carry on the war, but it is well that the public should know exactly the burden we have to carry, because this will have to be met afterwards by somebody, and unless we are alive to what we are paying now, there may be a lot of complaint when taxation comes to be borne afterwards.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt if the hon. Member is in Order. He is not discussing


expenditure, but the National Debt, and that would not be in Order on the Report stage.

Mr. Tinker: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I did think I was in Order, in view of the Debate which took place on Friday when the question arose of people not knowing exactly the expenditure we have to meet. I think the Financial Secretary said that people were not aware of the burden we have to carry with regard to the war. I understood from that that there was a desire on the part of the Treasury to enlighten people on the cost we are bearing. The Financial Secretary mentioned the figure of £24,000,000,000 which had been spent on war purposes, so I thought it would be wise if this morning we could have some idea as to the amount not met out of current taxation. If I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, I will bow to your Ruling, but I thought my question would be an invitation to the Treasury to give this information.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. Member is wrong. The Treasury may want to say something, but we must discuss expenditure on this Vote and not national finance.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): We might find a way of giving the hon. Member the information he requires on another occasion —perhaps by means of question and answer.

Mr. Stephen: I was also interested in what the Financial Secretary said in regard to the amount of money that has been expended since the beginning of the war. The Debate on Friday certainly seemed to show that there are many hon. Members in this House who are somewhat uncomfortable about what the position of this country will be when the war ends. There was some discussion on the plans the Board of Trade are making at present with regard to the reorganisation of industry, and it occurred to me that while this country will be very much poorer in some ways at the end of the war, the position of other countries in Europe will be very much worse.
I wonder whether, in passing this Vote, the House should not also consider again the wisdom or otherwise of the Government policy in regard to its slogan of "unconditional surrender." Some of us

feel that if the Government adopted a line making it plain that while war criminals in every country would be punished, at the same time they were anxious that Germany and the satellite countries should have the opportunity of working out, in co-operation with all the countries in the world, a decent standard of life for their people, it would have been of advantage and would have led to a speedier ending of the war. At the end of the last war President Wilson's points were made the basis of the Armistice, and afterwards the Germans felt that they had not been defeated in the war. I think that was a gross superstition, and I think it is also an illusion that, if they are forced into a position of unconditional surrender, for all time the Germans will admit that they were beaten in this war. It is quite obvious that there will be excuses for the Germans after defeat comes. Just as they said they were not beaten last time, because they were stabbed in the back by social democracy, so they will contend at the end of this war, that they were stabbed in the back by the rebellion of the generals.
I think we should clear our minds with regard to this matter. It would be all to the good, and would hasten the end of the war, if a statement were made by a world statesman like our Prime Minister, the President of the United States, or Marshal Stalin, repeating definitely what was said by the Russians previously, that there is no intention of destroying the German people. It might make the German people insist on their rulers throwing in their hands. Some hon. Members are content to leave all this spending in the hands of the Treasury on the assumption that the Treasury is a very good watchdog for public expenditure. Indeed, that view was expressed in Friday's Debate, although there were others who said that the main function of this House was to exercise a careful scrutiny over all public expenditure.
12.15 p.m.
I would agree that the Treasury have always proved a very capable watch-dog upon public expenditure when it is a question, for example, of expenditure on social reform, but I think the Government have been very careless in their expenditure for carrying on the war. The discussions we had on how the public interest might be better protected


and whether the Government system of working for so long by costings was wasteful or not made it plain that the Treasury was not such a vigilant watch-dog as one might have desired. In the matter of the pay of soldiers and the pensions paid to men who had been wounded and made useless physically by their war service the Treasury did prove a very efficient watch-dog. Again and again it has been only as a result of agitation in this House that we have been able to get more decent treatment for the men and women in the Services, and I think the Treasury would be acting much more efficiently and much more wisely if they were much more generous in their attitude towards expenditure for the wellbeing of those in the Services and much more vigilant in their watch upon contracts entered into by the Government for the provision of the various munitions of war. It is perfectly shocking that the Government have had to be driven and kicked into making concessions from time to time in the treatment of those in the Services.
At the present time many people are going out of the Services back into civil life and they are finding it very difficult to get into suitable employment again. There are also those who left their civilian jobs and went into munition work out of patriotic zeal and because of their anxiety to help the country. Some of them were ex-Service men. They have since found themselves unable to carry on in the war factories and are out of employment, and I think the Government should do much more towards rehabilitating those people and fitting them into suitable employment, granting them decent allowances until they can again be fitted into a suitable place in the community. Various cases in that connection have been brought to my notice, and when we are asked to vote this enormous sum the Government ought to be urged to be more generous in their treatment of the ordinary men and women who have given their services to the community. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will bear that in mind.
I was not greatly impressed by some of the things that the Financial Secretary said with regard to the financial position of the country in a Debate on the Adjournment. A previous Chancellor said that people sometimes asked: "If all

this money can be found for carrying on the war, why could it not be found for giving our people more comfortable conditions in days of peace?" He drew the the parallel of how, when a person was ill, members of the family would make very great sacrifices in order to secure remedial treatment to restore him to health again, but I think that is no real analogy While we have spent £24,000,000,000 on carrying on the war and are now asking for £1,250,000,000 more, the fact remains that we still have the factories and the workshops and the man-power in the country. I will admit that there is a great burden of debt and heavy interest to be paid in days to come. One hon. Member has suggested that the interest on the debt will be about £700,000,000 per annum. I just wonder how much of that will be internal and how much we shall have to pay to outside creditors. I do not know whether it would be in Order, but I was going to ask if the Financial Secretary would tell us how much we owe to outside creditors and not to people in our own country.
I would also point out that as we still have this tremendous industrial capacity in the country, all this skill and manpower, that I have no doubt we shall be able to face the future in an optimistic way, unless we are crushed by a financial system which is not a reasonable financial system at all. The last thing I want to say is that I am confident that if in 1939 one country had embarked upon a five-year plan of spending £24,000,000,000 on peaceful development, that if there had been such a policy in any one country, there would have been no world war and the world would have been saved this tremendous holocaust; but in those days whenever a demand was made for expenditure in order to improve the conditions of the people and raise their standard of living, we were told that the money could not be found. It is only when we get Governments who realise that there should be the same lavish expenditure in the days of peace as we have in the days of war that we shall be in a position to make war impossible in the future.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses the House, may I ask whether he can give some explanation of why on this occasion £250,000,000 is added to the usual £1,000,000,000 for which he has asked in


previous Votes of Credit. On a former occasion when this subject was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor pointed out that the House had appointed a Select Committee on National Expenditure and that the Chancellor did look to that Committee to be a sort of watch-dog upon national expenditure from the point of view of the House of Commons. On the last three occasions on which a Vote of Credit has been asked for not a single reference has been made to the work of that Committee. The Committee does a good deal of work and presents Reports, and if the House would read some of its Reports and raise matters in Debate I venture to think it would be of assistance to the Treasury and a control upon improper expenditure. I do not think that we who serve on that Committee wish to do all this work unless it is of some use and unless we feel we have got the encouragement of the Treasury—and some people think we have not—and it would be a great help if this House and all the spending Departments realised that it is only by the close scrutiny of details that it is possible to effect some form of control. I only rise to mention this because I think the time is coming when a good many hon. Members who serve on that Committee may feel that their work is not fully justified unless they do have the full support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers responsible for the vast expenditure of this country in seeing that waste is prevented.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I do not think the House desires to have a prolonged Debate on this item of business, but I should like to make one or two observations in regard to what has been said. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised a question which seemed to me to be rather far removed from the subject with which we are dealing when he challenged the policy of the Government with regard to unconditional surrender. That policy has been explained in this House on a number of occasions, and it has been made perfectly clear that what we and the other United Nations mean by unconditional surrender is surrender without negotiated conditions, without any pre-arrangement which would give an opportunity to anyone to say that a bargain had been made which had been broken. No further back

than the 29th September there was a Debate in this House on the subject in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary quoted a statement by the Prime Minister which I had better read again. Speaking of unconditional surrender he said:
It means that the Allies will not he bound to them at the moment of surrender by any pact or any obligation.… Unconditional surrender means that the victors have a free hand."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 699.]
Then the Foreign Secretary proceeded to develop that theme. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might refresh his memory by looking up the record of that Debate. I thought the hon. Gentleman was a little ungracious in what he had to say about the Government's treatment of the question of allowances to soldiers, dependants' allowances, wound pensions and the like. He said, in effect, that the Government have never done anything in these matters unless they were kicked into it. Let me remind him that the last very substantial concessions to long service men and officers and in respect of the arduous conditions of the Far Eastern campaign were made without any preceding agitation whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Without any preceding agitation, certainly. There had quite recently been Debates which the Government had met, after consultations with Members in all parts of the House, by certain concessions costing a substantial sum of money, but the more recent concessions were granted without any previous agitation. If the hon. Gentleman would compare the scale of allowances, whether in the field of social service, or allowances to the dependants of soldiers, that are current at this moment, with the corresponding scales at any previous time in our history, he will see that there is a very great advance indeed.
12.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman went on to raise other matters. He talked about the hardships and difficulties confronting persons who leave the Services or go from munition work and have difficulty in finding employment. The House will not expect me to go over all these points in detail, but, again, I would take the arrangements now in operation for training and rehabilitation—the machinery that is available for finding jobs for people who are displaced


in the course of the war and it will be found that we have made an enormous advance on anything previously known. That is all, I think, that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say on the subjects which he raised. One hears people talk of the scale of expenditure in the war, and asking questions as to why we cannot have a similar scale of expenditure for other purposes in times of peace. Surely, everybody knows perfectly well that the expenditure in the war, which is forced upon us, involves tremendous hardships and difficulties all round, and involves heavy burdens on those who come after us, and all that is not to be compared with conditions in times of peace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) asked a question to which, I should have thought, he would have known the answer. He wished to know why we were asking, not for £1,000,000,000, but for £1,250,000,000. I did explain this in my opening statement and the explanation is quite simple. If we asked only for the usual £1,000,000,000, we should find ourselves needing more money in the middle of the Christmas Recess, so we thought it more prudent to ask for a sum of money sufficient to carry us on beyond the Christmas Recess. That is the whole explanation. I made the same explanation last year. I hope I shall not have to make it again next year.
My hon. Friend was a little hard, I think, in his suggestion that the Government have not shown adequate appreciation of the services of the Select Committee on National Expenditure of which, I know, he is a very active member. I do wish to assure the House that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, are very deeply appreciative of the service rendered by that Committee. I know, personally, of the vast amount of time and considerable effort that have been expended in getting down to the hard facts underlying our expenditure, and what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie said about the position of the Treasury in regard to expenditure has a great element of truth in it. The Treasury alone cannot control war expenditure. The control of normal expenditure is a much simpler problem, but, in war, the Treasury must have the collaboration of the spending Departments. Unless there is a proper sense of economy in the

spending Departments, the best efforts of the Treasury cannot prevent avoidable waste. Not only must the Treasury have the collaboration of the spending Departments; it must also have the kind of outside independent assistance that is rendered—and rendered, I say, very effectively—by the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

Mr. Pethick Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget the Public Accounts Committee, I hope.

Sir J. Anderson: I was going to add that just as similar bodies in the past have rendered such service, the Public Accounts Committee—after the event, it is true—by consistently scrutinising the records of expenditure has proved a most important bulwark to the Treasury in their efforts to eliminate waste, and unnecessary expenditure of all kinds. I hope after what I have just said, I shall never again be thought to be lacking in a proper sense of appreciation of the voluntary services rendered by hon. Members in such a public-spirited manner.
Question, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [20th October]

Resolution reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £1,250,000,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Assheton.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five, and to appropriate the further Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 50]

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (WAR MARRIAGES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.38 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill extends the jurisdiction of the High Court in England and the Court of Session in Scotland in divorce proceedings. The necessity for it arises, as I am sure the House knows, from the number of marriages that have taken place between members of the Forces from overseas, who are here because of the war, and British women in this country. But to understand the Bill and its necessity, it is necessary that I should say a word or two about the existing limits of the divorce jurisdiction of our courts here. Our courts entertain proceedings for divorce only if the domicile, that is, in popular language, the permanent residence of, the parties, is in this country. There is a somewhat wider extension in respect to nullity proceedings, but I think I can neglect that for the purposes of the argument, because most of the cases with which we are concerned here will be divorce proceedings.
It is useful to compare the sort of circumstances with which the war has confronted us, with what normally occurs in ordinary times. If a man came from overseas to this country for some temporary purpose, and fell in love with an English girl who accepted him, and they agreed to marry, normally no doubt, it would be the common intention that they should go back to his country where his work was, and they might be married here or there. If married here they would, normally, soon after the marriage —perhaps immediately after the marriage —return to the intended matrimonial home, which would be the man's country. When one considers these marriages which have taken place in considerable numbers during the war, one sees how difficult the position is. The man is not in a position to go home. He is here on service, and the date of his return is unspecified. There is another fact on which I shall have to say a word or two later and which has, no doubt, contributed to the number of people who will desire to take advantage of this Bill. Normally, when two people marry, they are able to set up a joint home and live

continuously together. In many cases, in these marriages, very shortly after the marriage has taken place, the man has to go overseas to fight, and his wife is left here alone.
As hon. Members will see, in the case of a marriage between a Canadian or an American man and an English woman, the intention of both parties being that after the war they shall go back to Canada or the United States, to the man's home, where he will carry on whatever his work was in civil life, the intended permanent home of such a marriage is Canada or the United States as the case may be. As the law stands at present, if the husband commits a matrimonial offence entitling the wife to petition for divorce, or the other way round, they cannot bring proceedings here because the domicile, the permanent home, is not in this country. Take the hypothetical case of a soldier from overseas who marries an English woman. They both intend, if the marriage is happy, to go back to his country as soon as they can after the war. Suppose he is unfaithful to her, and gives her grounds for divorce. As the law stands she cannot bring proceedings in this country. That might inflict a very great hardship on her and might also have the practical inconvenience that the evidence of his infidelity would be evidence available in this country and might be very difficult to prove overseas.
What, in effect, this Bill provides is that, subject to certain limits which I will deal with later, where a marriage has broken up before the parties have gone back to the country of the husband's home, although the domicile, in the legal sense, is not here, our courts can have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. I hope that is a principle which will commend itself to the House. If the parties go back to the country of the man's home, then we think it right that the ordinary rule should apply, and that that country should be the country where divorce proceedings must be taken. I have referred to members of the Forces, but this is not restricted only to members of the Forces. It is restricted—and this is a point on which I want to say a few words—to marriages which took place after 3rd September, 1939, and before an appointed day which will be fixed soon after the end of the war, when the conditions which have led to the problem have ceased to


operate. There are two notices on the Order Paper which suggest that we ought to have made this Bill a permanent Bill.

Mrs. Tate: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: I hear applause. There are two reasons, for the course we have adopted, which will commend themselves to the House. First, I think it would be inconsistent with the general policy which is being followed with regard to legislation in war-time to ask this Parliament to make a permanent and important change in divorce law. It might be said "If it is wholly uncontroversial, let it go through," but I am not clear that it would have been wholly uncontroversial, because this is a matter on which people have very strong views and those views do not always coincide. Many people who are interested in this problem attach great importance to the maintenance of the rule, which has been laid down strictly by our courts, that the proper basis of divorce jurisdiction is domicile or permanent home and they would regard with great jealousy any permanent invasion of that principle. Therefore, there is not the slightest doubt that, if we had brought this Bill before the House as a permanent Measure, we should have had a good deal of opposition, which will be absent to-day.

Sir Herbert Williams: The Attorney-General said, "domicile or permanent home." They may have alternative meanings, but I take it that he realises that "permanent home" in this case is a place where one of the persons concerned has never been.

The Attorney-General: Yes, I realise that, and I thought I had made it quite clear. Let me repeat it for the benefit of my hon. Friend who is, I know, interested in this problem. I pointed out the contrast between now and peace-time. When a man, in peace-time, comes from a foreign country, falls in love with a woman here and marries her, there is normally no obstacle to an immediate return to his country. That would become his country of domicile. But in the special circumstances of war-time, which do not operate in normal times, there is a gap between the time when the marriage takes place, and the time when the married couple can return, as they intend, to the husband's home in his own

country. Let me go back to what I was saying. If we had attempted to make this Bill a permanent Bill there would have been great controversy. I do not want—and it is unnecessary for me—to express any strong view as to how far something like this Bill might reasonably commend itself to a future Parliament. My hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) takes the view, I think—although he was not able to embody it in the Bill with which his name is so readily associated—that something on these lines would be an improvement if this country and other countries could agree. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) clearly take the same view. Let me point out that if this Bill becomes an Act, not only will it not preclude a future Parliament from adopting their views, if it agrees with them, but it will afford very relevant and important evidence of how an extension of this kind works.

Mrs. Tate: Are we, then, to understand that the appointed day is not certain, and that we might be asked at the end of this Parliament to change, or do away with the appointed day?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that what I said had anything to do with the appointed day. That day will be fixed after the end of the war, when the conditions which have given rise to this problem have disappeared. I was saying that the fact of this Bill becoming an Act, and operating for a time—a considerable period, because it will go back to marriages which took place before the passing of the Act—will afford evidence which will be relevant, and may be of use to those who, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University, think a case can be made out for a permanent extension of something on these lines. One argument used against my hon. Friends by those who, take a different view is that if you have an extension to this country you may have conflicts. They may be wrong; it may be that, in practice, that sort of conflict will not arise. Nevertheless, we should have encountered difficulties, if we had sought to make this Bill permanent, but if a future Parliament desires to make a permanent change on these lines, it will be assisted by seeing


the effect on a Statute Book of the extension which is at present proposed.
I have dealt generally with Clause 1, but there is an important provision in Sub-section (1) (b) about which I would like to say a few words. Under the Act of 1937—to which I have already referred in connection with my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University—there was a provision that the presentation of a petition should not be allowed within the first three years after a marriage, unless the case was one of exceptional hardship for the petitioner, or exceptional depravity on behalf of the respondent. That provision contemplated a normal case where, after the marriage, the husband and wife had been able to live continuously together in their home. In a good many of the cases with which we have to deal that has been impossible, because the man has gone overseas. The vast majority of marriages are happy, but it must be said that in many cases the break-down of marriages has been due to the fact that the husband has had to leave his wife and go elsewhere. We felt, therefore, that it would be a hardship and, indeed wrong to sustain this three years' provision with regard to these marriages. You may say that the provision was not absolute, but that would have increased the costs, and meant another application and another complication. We felt that the circumstances through which a marriage broke down, justified us in saying that this three year's provision should not apply.
I have been asked the purpose of the first provision of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which deals with the case where parties of a marriage have resided together in the country in which the husband was domiciled. For the purpose of this proviso the whole of the United States of America, the whole of India, and so on, are to be treated as one country. Although the husband's home might have been in one particular State in America the proviso operates if the couple go back to the United States, whether they go back to the original State or not. Subsection (3) deals with the possible case where, after marriage, the parties change their intended domicile. Clause 2 contains the necessary adaptation to Scotland, and Clause 3 deals with Northern Ireland, and is put in to remove a possible

doubt. As the House may remember, the Parliament of Northern Ireland is precluded, in general terms, from legislating in respect of matters arising out of a war, and it might be said that this legislation fell under that ban.
Clause 4, which is a little complicated, deals with recognition in other parts of the Empire of decrees or orders made by virtue of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and also deals with our recognition here of decrees or orders which might be made in their courts, under similar legislation to this. We cannot, of course, legislate for the Dominions. Whether they recognise decrees or orders under this Bill will be for them to decide. We have, of course, kept them fully informed of what we were proposing to do, and such comments as they have made have been favourable. With regard to the Colonies, subject to any exceptions or modifications that might be made by Order in Council, decrees or orders made under this Bill will be recognised there, and we, also, will recognise their decrees or orders under similar legislation, should it be passed. With regard to the Dominions, if they pass legislation similar to this, extending their jurisdiction, we will recognise their orders if they recognise ours on a reciprocity basis.

Mr. McGovern: Lend-Lease.

The Attorney-General: Yes, and reverse Lend-Lease. It is desirable to have reciprocity in these matters. Under legislation which was passed after the last war to deal with this matter it was made conditional on reciprocity. We did not think that was right. There would have been difficulty in applying it to foreign countries, apart from the Dominions. We think we are justified in asking the House, to give extended jurisdiction, and we have done our best to see that we get reciprocity, if it is possible. I think that explains the main principle of the Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Parker: As one who has very recently been married and is very happily married, I hope the House will not consider it inappropriate that I should speak in support of a Bill to increase the facilities for divorce. I should like to say


on behalf of the Labour Party that we support the Bill and think it meets a very real need. With regard to the Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) and Frome (Mrs. Tate), we do not think this is an appropriate occasion to raise matters which would be better dealt with in some general overhaul of the divorce law. I can speak as a strong supporter of the earlier reform of the divorce law which the hon. and gallant Gentleman took such a large part in getting carried. I voted with him in the Lobby on every occasion necessary in supporting that Bill. But in order to get that reform it was necessary for opinions on this critical subject to crystallise. It is still a matter on which there are many different views and, if we are to have a further reform of the law, which I believe to be necessary, it should be one on which there is general agreement and it should cover not only the points raised in this Bill but others also. Therefore we are not prepared to support the Amendment.
We take the view that some legislation may be necessary following the war, particularly if difficulties arising from many wartime marriages between British subjects are to be dealt with. The point about a three years gap between marriage and divorce may need looking at again after the war. The general question should be dealt with as part of a general overhaul of the divorce law, but with regard to marriages between British subjects and Dominion and Foreign Servicemen, we think that raises very special problems which must be dealt with here and now. The extent of these marriages is much greater than many people imagine. A friend of mine who served on an Australian ship which came to this country tells me that at the time it left Australia only 10 per cent. of the crew were married. They served in British waters and, after six months, 60 per cent. had married British wives. That is probably exceptional but there have been a great many marriages and there are bound to be some which have not turned out happily.
In the normal course of events people from the Dominions or America marrying British wives will go to those countries and settle down. Should difficulties arise at a later stage they can be dealt with

under the divorce laws of those countries, but in the peculiar circumstances of the war, where there may be a long gap between the marriage and the settlement in the country of the husband's domicile, difficulties may arise and, if a marriage is not successful, it is very unreasonable to expect the wife to have to travel all the way to America or to Canada to obtain a divorce when the required evidence is in this country. There are greater difficulties arising with regard to other of our Allies. A great many Poles have come here and there have been many marriages, particularly in Scotland. In their case, should a divorce be wanted, husband and wife will have to go to the husband's country to get a divorce. We do not know when that country may be free or when things may settle clown so that the law can work in a reasonable way. At any rate, it is particularly unreasonable to suggest that a Scottish girl married to a Polish soldier should be expected to have to go to Poland to get a divorce. There are also problems as to what will be the frontiers of the country when the war is finished, and a man may come from a place which may not be under its jurisdiction. It may be quite a time before conditions settle down in different parts of Europe.
The case for a Bill of this kind is very important, and it is very necessary that there should be provision to enable a divorce to take place speedily if so desired. There are other problems. Some foreign Servicemen may have lost their families and homes, or they may not have accurate information whether their families are still in existence. In many cases people may believe that their families have perished in the German invasion and evidence may come to light later that they have survived. Many problems of that kind may come up and it is desirable that British women should be able to get the matter dealt with in British courts. I do not wish to make any reflection on serving men from Allied countries. They have behaved in a right and proper way and have been a credit to their countries. But among large bodies of men there are bound to be a few black sheep and it is necessary to provide for difficulties that may have arisen owing to their conduct. The Bill meets a limited but a very real need and we will give it every support.

1.8 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: This is a subject in which I have taken a sustained interest for many years. As long ago as 1927 I introduced a Divorce Jurisdiction (Overseas Domicile) Bill. It was not a party Measure. It had the backing of the present Air Minister, one of the Members for West Ham, the late Captain Bourne, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production, and the then Member for Dartford—a good mixed bag. Our wisdom produced a Bill which occupied three-quarters of a page, and I think it was a better Bill than this, which occupies four pages. It applied to Scotland but not to Northern Ireland and we used the words "Great Britain." There is only one word in it that I would alter. This Bill is too timid. The problem will always arise, though not so frequently, in peace-time. When I was Member for Reading, two Reading women married Australian soldiers. The men were sent back to Australia and said, "As soon as we have a home fixed up we will send for you." Both the women, who had never lived out of England, had never even been abroad for a holiday, obtained complete evidence that their husbands had set up housekeeping with other ladies in Australia. They had not the money to go out there and the courts here were shut to them. Let us see what the Government did in 1926. It was because of the Bill of 1926 that I drafted mine.
An Act to confer on the courts of India and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions jurisdiction in respect of the dissolution of marriages the parties whereto are domiciled in England or Scotland.
I agree that the people were domiciled here but not living here. We said: "Let the courts of India be open"—I am only asking that it should be round the other way—"without limit of time." It involved the same principle. It was to enable soldiers and British civil servants in India to obtain divorce without coming home to Britain. This problem of domicile is difficult, but the ordinary citizen is not nearly so perturbed about it as certain judges. They are so respectable that they do not get divorces and they do not know where the shoe pinches. I am not quite happy about the three year Clause. This Bill has passed through another place, where all the bishops sit. I do not know whether they have time to read all the Bills. I remember when this

House passed a Bill to make it legal to have marriages later in the day than used to be the case, and the whole of the bishops missed it, because they were not there that day. I am wondering whether this Bill has received the endorsement of the ecclesiastical authorities. I hope, if the Attorney-General cannot now agree to a wartime Measure, he will consider the drafting of a wider Measure so that we can have a permanent Act to protect these people who have never left this country but are deemed to have a home in a country to which they have never been and for that reason find the doors of our courts shut against them.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. Horabin: With the necessity for a wider measure of reform of our divorce laws I am in complete agreement, but I think the limited objective of this Bill will commend it to all sections of the House. There are many thousands of our women who, during the war, have married men from overseas, and inevitably some of those marriages have gone sour. As I understand it, under the divorce law to-day those women, if they wanted relief, would have to go to the courts of the country of their husbands' domicile. I think it is vital that those unfortunate women should have an opportunity of seeking relief in our own courts. For that reason I support the Bill, because I think its objective is humane and because it will give these women relief under easier conditions and will enable them, if they wish, to get re-married.

1.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, while welcoming the principle of the Bill, declines to give a Second Reading to a measure which limits its benefits to women married during the period of the present war.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of the Attorney-General for the defence of this Bill, but I am completely unconvinced by such arguments as he used for making it a limited Measure. If we carry his arguments to their logical conclusion, they mean that every Act of Parliament that is brought before the House must be only for a preliminary period to see how it works and whether it


should remain on the Statute Book or be altered by a further Measure. His arguments are indeed an actual encouragement to Trial marriages. We all know cases in the war of men, some men, who have not been able to overcome the prejudice of our girls to enter into an illicit association and who have offered marriage as a means of securing their ends. We also know of great numbers of men who possibly feel, indeed believe, that their wives are dead. This specially refers to men of foreign countries who have been cut off from contact with their homes for so long. I would like to put before the House one or two arguments in favour of extending this Bill to include women who married in the last war and who are in the same position as those for whom this Bill legislates.
It is obvious from the terms of my Amendment that I have no evil or destructive intentions towards the Bill, but I feel that the House should not part with it until it recognises how limited it is and what tragic cases exist in every constituency which are not covered by this Measure because it is not applicable to cases arising from the last war. It is no good saying that there are far more cases affected this time and that it is not necessary to go back. The principle is the same and as much unhappiness is caused in both sets of cases. The woman who was married and deserted as the result of the last war and is unable to obtain a divorce has as good a case as a woman in a similar position in this war. I cannot believe that the technical difficulties which have been hinted at by the Attorney-General should be any obstacle towards an Amendment of this Bill before it leaves the House. The Attorney-General described at some length what the Bill sought to do. I have read it carefully, and I would like to put my version of what the Bill seeks to do. I admit that it is an admirable Bill, and I have no criticism to make of it except in regard to its limited scope.
The Bill seeks to allow a British woman married to a man domiciled in the Dominions or anywhere outside Britain, who wants and has a right to divorce, to secure it in the British courts irrespective of the divorce laws of the country where her husband is domiciled. I had hoped that the Bill arose out of a series of questions I put to the Prime Minister,

the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate during the last Imperial Conference, which I thought was an admirable time to confer with our Dominion representatives about this subject, which affects the Dominions as much as ourselves. If that is true, I would like to tell the House why I put those questions. Since putting them I have received scores of letters from all over the country giving cases of real tragedy, hardship and unhappiness which this Bill does nothing to rectify.
In order not to weary the House, I have selected only two cases which are good examples of the tragedies which are not relieved by this Bill. The one refers to a Scottish woman, a constituent of mine who married a soldier from Newfoundland; and the other to an Englishwoman who married a citizen of Eire. The Scottish woman married a soldier from Newfoundland in Scotland in the last war. She had two sons by him. Both have now grown up, they are married, and they are serving with great distinction in the Services. He deserted her after the war, left her in Scotland, went back to Newfoundland, and married again. He has brought up a large family by another wife. The Scottish woman has never seen him since, but she uncomplainingly accepted the burden of bringing up her family alone, She did so magnificently, but at great cost to her health. She never sought divorce because, like many Scotswomen, she was too proud or too sensitive to expose her deserted position to her neighbours. The position now is that, after a lifetime of comradeship with a childhood friend who always wanted to marry her, she would like to have the companionship of which she has been defrauded all these years, but she cannot have it. She is faced with two alternatives. There is no divorce law in Newfoundland. Therefore, she cannot get a divorce there even if she had the money to get there. She cannot get a divorce in this country because, under British law, she is married to a subject of Newfoundland. She is, therefore, left with the alternatives, either to live in sin, or to go on in loneliness for the rest of her life.

Mr. McGovern: How did the husband get divorced?

Sir T. Moore: He did not as there is no divorce law in Newfoundland. He just married a Newfoundland woman.

Mr. McGovern: A case of bigamy.

Sir T. Moore: If there is no divorce, I suppose there is no bigamy. This woman cannot secure a divorce in Newfoundland and cannot get a divorce here, and this Bill does not help her.
The other case is that of a woman married to an Irishman domiciled in Eire. There are no divorce laws in Eire, and this woman is subject to the same restrictions as the woman in the other case. Soon after her marriage, she found that her husband was a pervert, a sadist and a confirmed adulterer. Although she suffered much cruelty to body as well as to mind, she determined to do her best to make the marriage a success. She stuck it for six months, but although her spirit was nearly broken she decided to carry on for the sake of the baby that was coming, doing so against the protests of her friends. For 11 more years she stuck it, but eventually, four years ago, she could bear it no longer and she left him. If her husband had been English she could have got a divorce under the Act which was introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert).

Mrs. Tate: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is misleading the House. The husband would not have needed to be English; he only needed to have been domiciled in England.

Sir T. Moore: That does not affect the strength of my argument, which is to prove that, as there is no divorce law in Eire, owing to their peculiar situation, the woman is unable to get a divorce there. She cannot get one here either, although she could have got a divorce under the Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. This woman is still young and attractive. She has a young son who badly needs the supervision and care of a father. She gets no help from this Bill, but is left to continue her life of loneliness and desolation.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am anxious to get my hon. and gallant Friend's examples right. Could he add one fact with regard to each case? Did the wife ever make a matrimonial home, in the first case in Newfoundland, and in the second case in Eire?

Sir T. Moore: I was trying to cut down the description as much as possible in order not to take up time—

The Solicitor-General: It is a material point.

Sir T. Moore: The woman who married the Newfoundlander was taken out to Newfoundland immediately after he was demobilized, and then he brought her back to Scotland for the purpose, I suppose, of getting rid of her. The man's excuse was that he would have a better opportunity of work in Scotland, so he brought her back and then deserted her. The other woman visited Eire once for a brief period early in the married life, but she has never been resident there.
These are two cases I have selected out of many to prove my point that this Bill is so limited in its outlook and effect that the House would be unjust to all these women who have been left derelicts of the last war to pass it as it is. I ask the House to make its opinion felt on the Government so that the Bill may have the promise of being revised sufficiently in Committee to include these unfortunate women. My right hon. and learned Friend said that to make the Bill permanent would be an invasion of principle. Invasion of what principle? Does he mean the principle of justice, for that is what he was speaking about? He also said that the Government feared opposition. No Bill is ever passed without being opposed to some extent by someone or other. Opposition should merely strengthen the courage and determination of the Government to press on with their Bills. If they are satisfied with their Bill, opposition should be their lifeblood, and to adopt a defeatist attitude and refuse to do what is right because they fear opposition is not worthy of the united Coalition Government of which we are so often told to be proud. I hope that before the House finishes with the Bill they will leave in the minds and hearts of the many decent, honourable, good women for whom I speak some hope of being released from the loneliness and misery to which they are still condemned.

1.30 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to second the Amendment.
I find myself, in doing so, in a somewhat lonely position. Every hon. Member who has, so far, got up to speak on


the Bill has said that he considered that though the Bill was somewhat limited it was good as far as it went. Unhappily, I am not in that position. I think it is a thoroughly dishonest Bill and that the speeches which have been made in support of it, on behalf of the Government have therefore, of necessity, been thoroughly dishonest speeches. I hope to be able to prove that statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I must remind the hon. Lady that she must not impute motives, such as the motive of dishonesty.

Mrs. Tate: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I apologise if I said what I meant in an unfortunate way. I would remind the House that those of us who supported the Herbert Act had tremendous forces of argument brought to bear against us, and that one of the main features which made it possible, I believe, for the Herbert Act to pass, was that we introduced Section 1, whereby no one in this country could start divorce proceedings for any cause whatsoever, unless that person had been married for three years. That was an extremely important section. You may approve or disapprove of it but it was the one reason why, in my opinion, it was possible to get the Herbert Act through Parliament, and approved by a section of the Church, and with the measure of support it had.
What have we heard from the Attorney-General to-day? He said it was impossible to ask us to revise the divorce law in time of war. Yet what are we doing, by this miserable little Bill? We are wiping away that three-year Section for the duration of the Bill for a certain section of people. Is that interfering with divorce law or is it not? Is it honest or is it not? Is it creating anomalies or is it not? I beg the House to realise what it is being asked to do in passing the Bill. We are told to support it because of hard cases. God knows cases are hard. They are heartrending, but if we want to put them right, we must do so in the right way, as we could have done in one hour by giving women a right to their own domiciles.
How are we attempting to put it right? What will be the position if this miserable, wretched Measure goes through Parliament? A girl may have married a

resident of Eire on 2nd September, 1939. She will have no possibility of release from her marriage as long as she lives, no matter what her husband does. On the other hand, a girl who married a man from Eire on 4th September, 1939, is to have release. Is that just? There is another position which will arise if the Bill goes through. An English girl may marry an Englishman or a foreigner who states that this country is to be his domicile. If he perpetrates every infamy of which man or woman is capable, that girl will be unable to start divorce proceedings against that man till three years from the date of the marriage. If that man has a brother who says, on the other hand, "My domicile is not in this country. I come from Eire, or from Newfoundland, or from Canada, and thither I intend to return," his wife will be able to start divorce proceedings within one week. Is that what the Government call justice and is that not interfering with the divorce laws?
The hon. Member who spoke for the Labour Party said that he was a happily married man, as indeed is the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer A. Herbert), and it is to their eternal credit. With his humanitarian motives, the Senior Burgess for Oxford University did what he could to revise our monstrous divorce laws. I do not wish to sail under false colours; it is perfectly well known that I have availed myself of the divorce laws of this country to terminate an unhappy marriage, but I am for justice, not for too easy divorce. This Bill is not just and if we pass it we shall be creating as many hard cases as we shall be removing. The Attorney-General said: "So many foreigners have come to our shores, and girls have not been able to live with their husbands in the same home owing to war as they normally would have done." Of course, that is perfectly true, but has anyone heard of the British Navy? Have there been no Eire nationals serving in the British Navy who married British girls before this war and who were unable to set up permanent homes for them immediately?
Since when have the Government said it was right to revise a law because of hard cases? I was always told that hard cases made bad law. One thing that absolutely stupified me was when the Attorney-General said that the Bill had


the approval of the Church. I believe that is correct. He has rounds for saying that. When I read the Debate in another place, I was staggered to discover that the Rt. Reverend the Bishop of Wakefield supported this Bill on the grounds that
We are not going to safeguard marriage by making it extraordinarily difficult for people, by compelling them to travel over to the United States or Canada, to obtain divorce. Meanwhile, the individual is suffering through the unfortunate breakdown of the marriage, and perhaps the innocent party has been very greviously wronged.
In that case, is the Church now the advocate of doing away with every restriction, and giving divorce in every case where the innocent party has been grievously wronged? Whatever they say I say you should not alter the divorce laws of the country and do away with the three-year Section for one limited category of women. That is wrong. Of course, the Government are going to say that it is impossible for them to change the domiciliary laws for women. They are waiting for the concurrence of the Dominions. They say that every time it is a question of women's nationality. They say it, and they will not do it, only because the whole matter is really a case of a woman having right to her own domicile.
Let us see what the Dominions have done. New Zealand has already recognised that domiciliary laws with regard to divorce are impossible. Under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1928, they amended their law, and provided
that where a wife living in New Zealand craves for a divorce on any ground, and has been living in New Zealand for not more than three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and has the intention of residing permanently in New Zealand, in such a way as would constitute a New Zealand domicile, she shall be deemed to be domiciled in New Zealand and to have been at the time of the petition domiciled in New Zealand.
May I ask why we could not have done what it has been possible to do in New Zealand; instead of introducing a Bill to create these frightful anomalies? We shall now have one section of women enabled to start divorce proceedings in one week, and another section unable to start them for three years, and yet another section of women who were married before 4th September, 1939, may never be able to get their freedom at all.
The Attorney-General talked as though every man married in this country and domiciled here never changed his domicile. That is not so. Let me tell hon. Members a hard case which came to my knowledge. A British woman married a British man, and they lived in this country. The British man turned round to her and said: "The very sight of your face nauseates me"—as a matter of fact perhaps he did not say it even as politely as that. He then went off to Peru, where he took unto himself another woman. Whether he took her as his wife and committed bigamy, or whether he lived in sin, I do not know He had another woman, and the unfortunate wife living in this country was unable to afford a journey to Peru. So, for 10 long years she was absolutely bound to that man in Peru. She would have been bound to him for life but for one thing. He was obviously of a changeable nature. He tired both of Peru, and of the second woman, and he then settled in, Scotland. He wrote to his first wife and said: "After all, you were not so bad. We might as well correspond." They did not join up again, and that woman, after 10 years, was at last able to get a divorce, because she was able to afford a journey to Scotland.
I cannot understand why the Labour Party, who always say they represent the poor—though as a matter of fact we represent just as many poor quite as well as they do—should believe hard cases to be only a matter of domicile, or only a matter of war. They are just as likely to arise if someone is unable to afford a journey. Hard cases are what we are debating to-day; and now for a certain length of time, a certain number of women are to have relief because they are regarded as hard cases, but the women who could not afford to make journeys before 4th September, 1939, or cannot afford to make journeys after the appointed day, are to have no relief. Apparently, for this august Government, they do not constitute hard cases. I will never support this hypocritical and puny Measure, and if no other hon. Member votes against it I shall vote against it. Change the domicilary laws, make the three-year Clause the same for all and introduce a Bill based on the date of the Herbert Act when, for the first time, desertion became a ground for divorce in this country.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I have listened to the case made out by the Attorney-General in support of the Bill, and to the speeches made by those opposed to the limitations of the Bill. I must confess that I should have preferred a Measure that dealt with the very best cases rather than with the worst cases thrown up during the period of the war. I can understand quite well why the Government are being driven to come to the House with a Measure of this kind. It is because of the large number of marriages that are broken, sometimes after two or three weeks or two or three months of jamboree in London and elsewhere. The parties were attracted, not because of qualities of being able to keep a home, or of some other endearing qualities, but because of very questionable allurement. Realising that a number of these marriages are going to be wrecked after the war, if the husbands should survive the tragedy of war, the Government are providing an opportunity to dissolve these marriages, entered into with very little consideration in many cases and very little thought for the aftermath of war.
The causes that have been mentioned here to-day are causes that are brought to the attention of Members from time to time. I have always thought it was the purpose of Parliament to try to rectify injustices from which a considerable number of people suffered, and which were admitted to be injustices. I should have thought that a Coalition Government during a period of war, a Government who are usually compromising, if not eliminating, principles in which they profess to believe, might, by that same compromising element, have solved a large number of these problems that are thrown up in wartime and peace, and are permanently with us, instead of attempting a stop-gap Measure during the period of the war for dealing with the worst types of cases that come along.
We all know that there are objections to divorce, but divorce has never been forced on anyone. However, if two parties cannot live together happily, or if they intend to separate, then there should be some opportunity for those individuals to live, if they so desire, with a partner with whom they find they can agree and live happily. Church people will object, but, after all, the most reactionary elements in all the Churches never agree with

anything that will rectify injustices or give to the community an opportunity for decent living. Very often they oppose such steps and afterwards they say "We were in favour of it all along," when they see that the community is in favour of it. Therefore, I would not place too much importance on the fact that a number of these individuals are opposed to divorce.
I think it is generally admitted that family life through marriage is the basis of civilised communities, and everyone would desire to see homes where the husband and wife co-operate and live together happily, and bring up their families and discharge their duties in an intelligent and humane manner. But we do find misfits, people who may be attracted either during a period of war or peace, and afterwards find they cannot, under any circumstances, live together harmoniously. Therefore, they separate. Some of them go abroad, as has been mentioned to-day. I, myself, have had my quota of cases. I know of one man whose domicile was in England. He went to Australia after the last war. The wife was left with two children in this country. The man could have taken action in Australia, if he were so minded, but the wife could not take any action in this country for desertion. She would require to take an action in Australia. Therefore, after something like 22 or 23 years, the woman sent me a query—this was a year or two ago—whether I could get any information about whether her husband had taken action for divorce in Australia. She had heard he had taken action, and I think she herself was anxious at that stage to marry.
Take the point of view of the opposition which, we are told, always crops up. If that point of view prevails the incentive is for the woman to live with a partner in this country without going through a form of marriage. I should have thought that was contributing more to immorality, and that all the Churches would have been opposed to that. Another case which has been brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and myself, was of a woman whose husband went back to America from this country. He took action in America for divorce though he had no real grievance. He proceeded to marry again, and to rear a family. The woman made inquiries, a suitable partner having come along, but she was told that the


grounds of the divorce in America would never have been allowed in this country, and therefore she could not secure a divorce unless she could go to that country, which she was financially incapable of doing. She is doomed to live her life with a partner outside marriage, or try to get the means to go abroad in order to get a divorce in a foreign country. These cases are not only what Members have described as "hard cases." A considerable number of such cases are of a kind which should form a basis for some form of action in this House and country, which would give to these decent people the opportunity of marriage again, if they should so desire, and free them from an undesirable entanglement.
Therefore, I would say that this Measure, thrown up during the period of the war, is about as hasty as the marriages themselves. It is something that has been thrown up because it is known that a large number of these marriages will never stand the test; that they are only between people thrown together in very questionable circumstances and marriage is, so to say, the way to sexual intercourse. Therefore, marriage takes place, with many of the men living, as they know, on the edge of the abyss. They say, "We may go to France and be killed, and we are going to enjoy life before we go." That is the temper in which a large number of the marriages we see round us to-day are made. They are bound to bring terrible tragedies in their train, as war does in every field of activity. While I would not oppose the Bill in any way, I say that the lesson of the Bill to us is that something ought to, be done to clear up, in the field of marriage, all these anomalies which undoubtedly exist throughout the whole of this country.
I would certainly have been desirous of further extension of the Measure on the lines suggested by the two previous speakers. I cannot bring myself to oppose it, because I shall be glad to see an opportunity for many of these people to get out of their tragedies after the war, but I hope that the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will apply their minds to trying to get the Government to find some means of solving these terrible tragedies in the country.

1.55 p.m.

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: I think we should all like

to thank the Attorney-General for the lucid and disarming way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Measure. He must feel that some of us are looking a gift horse in the mouth. I think we are. I have put down an Amendment, not only concerning this particular Measure, but as part of a campaign I always have in mind for, if I may so express myself with respect, gingering up the Lord Chancellor. Many of us feel that now in every department of life constructive measures are going forward, but in the field of law reform, we have a long and continuously neglected area. Here is this long-standing problem, and all the great legal hierarchy can do is to bring forward this small and temporary Measure.
When the Attorney-General tells us it would be impossible to do the thing more thoroughly in war time, because we are not to have controversial legislation, I do not quite follow him. After all, no Bill of this kind is really controversial in the sense that divorce generally is controversial. There is no question of increasing the grounds or the area of divorce; it is purely a question of machinery and of distribution, to see that divorce is equitably distributed, and that all are fairly treated. Therefore, I do not recognise that Objection. When he goes on from that smoothly to refer to the excision of Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act I begin to wonder. I do not want myself to cause controversy about that but as the hon. Lady, has said that Section was a linchpin of the Act, and there are many who attach much value to it. I have some letters here. I do not wish to express an opinion now but it does not seem to me that that Sub-section goes very well with the statement that we must not do anything controversial.
The Attorney-General, in his very lucid account of the causes which have produced the necessity for this Bill, spoke as if the war was all there was to it. The real cause and necessity for this Bill is not the arrival of Allied troops in the present war. It is the law. It is a trouble about which humane judges have been fussing and bothering for 85 years in relation to desertion. It was commented on by the Royal Commission, and was commented on in relation to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. In that Act we did thrust a wedge into it, in Section 13, a small but


most important and permanent wedge, because it was provided that where the husband is domiciled in England and deserts abroad the wife can proceed at home. This Bill goes the other way, and if a husband is domiciled outside this country she can proceed here; but it does it temporarily instead of permanently, as the Act did.
I, too, have had letters from unfortunate women who have married citizens of Eire. They say, "I cannot divorce my husband here, because my legal home is in Eire"—a place where the wife has never been. Nothing could be more ridiculous. That does not apply to the man. Take the case of an Englishman who has married an American Red Cross girl. She goes off to America. He has not to chase her all over America. He can proceed here, now, even without this Bill. That is why I have spoken in my Amendment on the Paper of inferiority of status. What I am out to get is equality of status for the woman and the man.
If I may refer to the Bill for a moment, the proviso at the end of Clause 1 will, think, require a little attention in Committee because it seems that if a wife, such as I have mentioned, goes to Eire or Newfoundland for one day, she loses the benefit of the Bill. Surely, if that proviso is to stand at all, there should be some period of residence, say, for three years. I hope that will be considered by the Law Officers. It really is unjust such a girl cannot proceed. Enough has been said about the Bill to make it unnecessary for me to say more. When I ask the high lights of the law about these matters they always tell me, as the Attorney-General said, "We cannot do more, because the Dominions will not play." May I say that, while I am well aware that we no longer make the laws of the Dominions, I see no reason why the Dominions should make laws for us?

The Attorney-General: I am not conscious of having said anything of the kind that my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I am chiefly referring to conversations outside. But I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman did say that we should bear in mind the necessity of carrying the Dominions with us.

The Attorney-General: I am aware of the importance of carrying the Dominions with us, but we should recognise that if they are not prepared to do what we wish, we cannot compel them.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I am sorry. All I was going to say was that perhaps the Dominions will "play" if we give them a lead. We have made our own laws throughout the centuries, and I do not see why we should not continue to do so to-day. Perhaps the Government will appoint a committee of experts to go into the whole thing. While, in every other department of life, we find the Government buzzing like a hive with activity, nothing, we fear, is being done in the great department of law reform which is just as necessary as any others. I am sorry that in this case the Government did not take the bull by the horns and alter, what, in my opinion, is the barbarous and antiquated rule of domicile. These distinctions between men and women could all be abolished. I shall relentlessly oppose the Bill, unless I have an assurance from the Law Officers that they really will get down to some substantial or permanent reform as soon as possible.

2.3 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I agree with nearly everything that has been said by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I do not go quite as far as the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), because she seems to think that this Bill is worse than no Bill: I would say that it is rather better than no Bill; but I agree that it is a miserable little Measure, which reflects the extraordinary lack of moral courage shown over and over again, in a space of many years, by the Government when they approach the question of the reform of the marriage laws or almost any other question which affects the relations between the sexes. I did not get up to repeat arguments which have been very well put by other hon. Members, who have studied the matter more than I have: I rise to put another question. I apologise for my ignorance, but I am not an expert on the divorce law. I want to know whether this Bill will, in any way, affect the question of economic conditions for


the deserted wife, or her offspring. I hope that the Government will deal with that point. Will the court be able, when it acts on this Bill, to grant alimony; and, if so, are there reciprocal arrangements with the Dominions and other countries, to enable the payment of alimony to be enforced when the husband is living abroad? I think that that is an important point: the wife may need alimony, and even more the children, if they are left in her care, may need something.
I want to refer to a point which shows the real need for going into this question more thoroughly, and in a more courageous spirit. Even if you extend this Bill, as my hon. Friend urged, to remedy those undesirable omissions, even if you make arrangements for alimony—reciprocal arrangements, because, obviously, the wife cannot get money out of a man who is abroad unless there is some arrangement with that country to enable her to do it—there is still a need for some arrangement for separated wives and their children, remaining in this country, when there is no question of divorce. Many Roman Catholics have not been able to ask for divorce, because their religion forbids divorce. All they can get is a separation order. Is it possible for a woman married to a foreigner, who subsequently goes abroad, to get a separation order with maintenance; and is there any possibility of enforcing that maintenance order if she gets it? That goes a little outside this Bill, but I mention it merely to show that the whole question needs going into more thoroughly, and in a more courageous spirit.
It is a great mistake to suppose that laws which produce an unjust position for the woman, because it is assumed that the man is the head of the family, make for morality. It is just the opposite. Only two hours ago, I was interviewing in the Lobby a clergyman, a constituent of mine, who wanted my advice about a case where a Pole had formed relations with a woman. They wanted to marry, but they could not marry, because he is a prisoner of war. My constituent wanted to know whether it would be possible for these people to marry before the child that they were expecting came into the world. From the point of view of the future welfare of the child, it might be better if the child were born while they were

still living in sin, because then the child would be British, and would be able to claim the advantages of British nationality. I will not enlarge upon that, but so long as you do not enable women to have perfect equality in matters of domicile and of choosing their own nationality with men, there is a great temptation to go on living in sin, because then they are masters of their fate, and do not have to accept the same nationality as the man.

2.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I think the Government are being rather hardly treated by those who have commented on this Bill, particularly by the hon. Lady the Member for Frame (Mrs. Tate), who has indicated that she is prepared to vote against this Bill, even if she is the only person to do' so. I feel bound to remind her that, as I understand the Rules of this House, she will require at least two other people to support her. I hope that no attempt to negative this Bill will be encouraged. There is a strong case for the Amendment, and I have every sympathy with it. I hope the time will come when the Government will extend the ambit of the principles of the Bill. But that is no reason at all for rejecting this Bill. As the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, this Bill has been hastily thrown up. For that very reason it would be quite wrong to attempt, in a Measure of this kind, to deal with such a fundamental principle as is involved in the Amendment. It should be said, on behalf of the Government, that they have rightly recognised that a particularly dangerous and difficult situation has arisen for a particular class of people. They have brought forward a Measure which is intended to deal with that situation. The larger question, of whether it should be extended to other times and Other conditions, will require much more careful examination than can be given at a moment like this. Obviously, every step for easier divorce makes for more irresponsible marriages, and it is a matter for considerable thought before we do anything which would tend to make the divorce laws of this country approximate more to those of Reno. I hope that the Bill, which is a good one so far as it goes, will be permitted to go through.

2.11 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: May I first render my thanks to my hon. Friends the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), and the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) who have associated their parties with the support of this Bill, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) for what he has just said. I know that on a subject of this kind, which is not often discussed in this House, all my hon. Friends would like me to try to deal with the main points that have been raised; and if I cannot deal with details, they will understand. I think it is correct to say that the main objection of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is that the Bill is not retrospective, to cover similar cases which arose out of the last war. In putting forward legislation, it is always a sound rule to relate it to the mischief with which you are trying to deal. In this case, we are endeavouring to meet a problem which has arisen during the period for which we are legislating.
Already there are, I think, some 20,000 marriages with Servicemen of Dominion Forces, irrespective of those with American nationals. That is a great problem, worthy, in our view, of the attention of this House. That is the problem with which we are endeavouring to deal in this Bill. It is quite correct that there are cases which have remained over from the last war—I shall not deal with the details, but I have carefully noted the cases—where the same problem arose. It was dealt with by legislation after the war, in the wav that this Assembly thought right at the time. I would ask my hon. Friends to remember and sympathise with the position of anyone introducing legislation to-day, if they feel that it is only right to ask for these new powers and duties in the case where the proved evil is demonstrated to them from the circumstances of their own times. My hon. Friends the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and the hon. and gallant Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) put their criticism on a somewhat wider basis. They are not so much concerned with the question of time as with the question of whether this is not a suitable opportunity to deal now—in the case put by the hon. Member for Frome—with the fact that a wife takes the husband's domicile, and

whether a wife ought to have a separate domicile of her own, and—in the case put by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University—the question whether domicile is a suitable and modern test at all. I hope I have summarised shortly the points they endeavoured to make.
I should like the hon. Member for Frome to reconsider some of her approaches to our method of dealing with this problem. One of the points with which the hon. Lady was mainly concerned was this. She said that while we not prepared to interfere, generally, at the moment with the basis of domicile, we were prepared to abrogate, for the special purpose of this Bill, the provision of the Herbert Act as to the three years of marriage. Our answer to that is that, in these cases where the marriage breaks down, it is almost certain to break down early. I think that, if the House considers the cases—and I commend to the House a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), in which he dealt with the emotional background of these marriages, in aid of this point which I am making—they will agree that they are likely to break down early. If we are going to give any remedy for this difficulty, it has to be a speedy remedy, and that is, I submit, a justification and an answer to the hon. Lady on that point.
With regard to the question of whether a wife should have a separate domicile, that is a wide question and one of the most controversial in regard to divorce law, and I should like both my hon. Friends to consider what is really the basis of the present system. I am not closing my mind for a moment to that consideration. Naturally, my hon. Friends and myself, and the Law Officers for Scotland, will pay the greatest attention to everything that has been said on the general questions in this Bill, but I think it is right, in view of the speeches which this House has heard, that they should see the other side of the problem, which does fill the minds of many people. It is not a question of religious bias or religious conviction. It is a question of the basis of international comity and international life in this section of the human problem. It is this—that different communities have different views and laws respecting matrimonial obligations, and a different estimate of the causes which should justify divorce. That we cannot get away from


and everything that has been said in this Debate, is based on that fact of the different views of different communities in regard to it.
It is, therefore, both just and reasonable that the differences of married people should be adjusted in accordance with the laws of the community to which they belong and should be dealt with by the tribunals which, alone, can administer those laws. That is the basis, and, when one comes to domicile, I would ask hon. Members to consider this argument of the other side, which is bound to be taken into accountt—that, when you are deciding to which country you belong, it is not so much a question of nationality or of residence. It is the country you choose, the country in which you intend to live and from which you do not intend to depart. That is why there is this considerable body of opinion in favour of domicile as a basis, and what cannot be got away from is that an adherence to this principle will preclude the scandal which arises when men and women are held to be man and wife in one country and strangers in another. That is the difficulty about the other side of the case, and my hon. Friends, who have urged with such eloquence the other side of the picture, have not, I suggest to the House, really faced that problem of whether you are prepared to have it commonly known—not in special cases, but commonly—that you are to have that double status for one or other party, in different places. I simply commend that to my hon. Friends and put it before the House, to show that the problem is not an easy one, and that there is no solution which is completely clear and obvious.
I should like to repeat what I have said to my hon. Friends before—that that does not mean that we shall not give our attention to what has been said, and seriously consider the position, not only with regard to ourselves, but in regard to other countries. I am sure, despite what was said by the hon. and gallant Senior Burgess for Oxford University about there being no limit or waiting for other countries, he would be the first to realise that the negotiation and attainment of universal comity on this subject, would be for the greater benefit of mankind, for the world in general, and in this country. I hope that that, at any rate, puts the

position of the Government, and I hope the hon. Member for Shettleston will take it as applying to the consideration of the point he has already mentioned, with which, if I may say so, I was personally impressed.
I think that leaves only the point of my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) with regard to the question of maintenance. Of course, when you are dealing with the matter in this way, abrogating the basis of domicile for these special cases in this war problem, you can get your decree from the English court or the Scottish court, but the enforcing of the decree must be a matter, again, of negotiations with the Dominion, or the country in which the other party to the marriage lives. We have certain arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance decrees, and we shall be happy to look at these, because it is, obviously, a subject which, at the end of the war, will require reconsideration. I would remind my hon. Friends that that is really a different territory, because, there, you are concerned in the enforcement of judgments of one country in another, and that is a matter which, as the House will appreciate, requires consideration and international discussion. The same applies to the question of nationality, which my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities raised.

Petty Officer Herbert: Would my hon. and learned Friend deal with the point about the proviso on page 2, where, perhaps, a time period could be put in?

The Solicitor-General: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for reminding me, because, although I had noted that point, I am afraid I had not dealt with it. As the Bill at present stands, the word is "resided," and if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I think, for once he put it rather high. I would like him to consider this point. If you are to have a period of residence, it is difficult to decide what period it is to be. I think my hon. and gallant Friend suggested three years, if my memory is right. That is certainly a long period, although it is a period, in his own case, hallowed by the provision in his own Act. Roughly, for some purposes of Income Tax, the period is six months, and what I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to


consider is this. Does he think that there are many cases where the wife will go to the matrimonial home, that is, to Canada or the United States or Australia, and remain there for a short time? My view, and my reaction to my hon. and gallant Friend's point, is that these cases would be very few. In most cases, if the wife went out there, she would go out for a considerable and definite period, and with the intention of really forming the matrimonial home there. We will, however, consider the point, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will also, reciprocally consider it, I think that would be the best method of approach. At the moment it seems there is a small number of cases. I am not yet converted to my hon. and gallant Friend's view but will consider it again. I hope I have now dealt with the general points put from all quarters of the House, and I would conclude by asking the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which does deal with an admitted evil existing at the present time and affecting a considerable number of our fellow citizens.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister say whether his penultimate passages indicate that, after a further survey by his right hon. and gallant Friend and the Scottish Law Officers, it is their intention to introduce a wider Measure, covering the various criticisms raised in the Debate?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give an assurance of the introduction of a wider Measure. What I did was to say that these questions, which have been raised by all my hon. Friends, would receive full consideration from the Law Officers, and that the question of a wider Measure is one of the matters which we shall consider. But I cannot commit this Government, or a future Government, to the introduction of a Measure. I think that would be going beyond what can reasonably be asked of a Minister.

Sir T. Moore: In the circumstances, and as I believe that this Measure will do a great deal of good, in spite of the fact that it is not quite as good as we wanted it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House:—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTEN-SION) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 20th October.]

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Privileges, immunities and capacities of certain international organisations and their staffs.)

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Lewis.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'such,' in line 13, stand part of the Clause."

2.31 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: When we terminated our discussion on this Amendment on the previous occasion, I did not feel that the Government had made themselves clear on all the points, and I do not feel that up to the present they have in any way adequately convinced the Committee of the necessity for the paragraph which it is sought to delete by the Amendment. They certainly explained what they intended to do but they did not appear to have made the case that it is necessary, or to explain in any detail that it is necessary. The second point on which I do not feel that they gave adequate satisfaction is on the question of tax. Personally I remain unconvinced by the argument put forward by the Minister. His suggestion that because this country made a contribution of some sum towards an organisation it was therefore not desirable that some proportion of that sum should be deducted on account of tax was unconvincing. There must be very few Votes passed by this House which do not involve payment to various servants, who obviously, afterwards have to submit to a deduction of tax.
I have no desire in any way unnecessarily to prolong the discussions on this Bill in Committee. If, as I rather suspect to he the case, the Government have to some extent committed themselves in international arrangements, we have no desire to do otherwise than to try and facilitate them. If we could get some


undertaking iron the Government that the Measure will remain in force for a limited period, it would remove some of the objections. It would enable us to submit to those objections, with the right later on to find out how the Bill worked out and what the need for it really was, and then to decide, at a later time, whether it was necessary to carry into effect some of the Amendments which some of us have proposed at the present time. I would be out of Order in referring in any detail to subsequent Amendments, but I might perhaps be allowed, with an intention and desire to shorten the proceedings, to refer to an Amendment to the effect that the Bill should not be prolonged for more than a period of five years. I ask the Government whether it would be considered possible, on the Report stage, to accept an Amendment of this kind, as that would dispose of the objections we are now discussing.

The Deputy-Chairman: Had we not better wait until we come to that and deal with the point later?

Sir I. Albery: My difficulty is—without going into any detail—to let the Minister know that the kind of Amendment which I suggest might save the trouble of putting down Amendments of a consequential nature. It would help greatly if on Clause 6, in page 4, line 43, an Amendment were inserted as follows:
This Act shall remain in force for a period of five years, beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, and shall then expire.
That would mean that at the end of five years, when we have had experience of the working of the Act, the Government would have gained knowledge as to whether it was necessary or whether the privileges proposed are necessary and the House of Commons would definitely have the opportunity if they so desired of amending the Measure.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), do not want to delay the Government in proceeding with this matter at all, if we can possibly avoid it. But I think the Committee should carefully consider this Amendment. I would like to refer to the point I made on the last occasion, which my right hon. Friend endeavoured to answer during the

discussions on the Amendment. I said that officers or servants of U.N.R.R.A. might be in a privileged position and that the corporation might improperly afford them protection under this Bill. I said that a man having an accident, say, in the ordinary way, the corporation might come to his rescue and say that the act was done under their command or suggestion and that therefore he should have diplomatic immunity and not be liable.
The Minister's reply in my opinion was not quite satisfactory. He said that I was wrong, and proceeded to say that even if officials acted outside the corporation's instructions it would be a matter for a court to decide whether they were entitled to diplomatic immunity. I agree and I accept that. The Attorney-General followed that up and said that all that would have to be done would be for the servant to go to court and produce an affidavit to that effect, which would have to be satisfactory to the court. The question would be decided by the court. That may be so, but actually, it is only a mere formality, for the corporation decides who is to have such an affidavit. No one can tell the corporation what to do. There are no rules governing the corporation. If the corporation decided to give a servant an affidavit, saying that the servant acted under instructions and was entitled to immunity, the court actually would have nothing to say about it. It would be a decision, surely, that the court would be bound to make. But the civilian is put to double inconvenience. A British citizen, therefore, has to find out first whether an official is entitled to immunity and to undertake formal proceedings. He is practically bound to do this and should the court say that the official was not entitled to immunity, which is very unlikely, he would have to proceed in the ordinary way to claim damages.
As I say, the reply of the Minister of State was not, in my opinion, therefore, satisfactory. Immunity can be extended to a servant of the corporation to all intents and purposes as much as the corporation wishes. We all trust, of course, that the corporation will act honourably. We have a comparable position under the Habeas Corpus Act which has not been rescinded. In taking proceedings with regard to Habeas Corpus, in most cases the court has little power under that Act on ac-


count of the existence of Regulation 18B. I do not think that we are wasting our time in bringing up these points. In spite of the explanation of the Minister of State, U.N.R.R.A., in certain circumstances will—and it is only human that they should—come along and say that in a particular case they extend their protection and an affidavit will be granted. It is remarkable to me that this Bill, which originated in another place, should come down to this House in this way because we are told that in another place they discuss things in—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member really cannot go into that.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I have made my point.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should not have made it.

Mr. Hammersley: This Amendment is to delete paragraph (c) so as to remove from the provisions of the Bill the subordinate officials of the international organisation. Clearly it would be wrong to remove from the scope of the Bill completely the subordinate officials. It would be impossible to give the international organisation the immunity that it requires, it subordinate officials could be summoned by the processes of law, and the international association could have political matters brought before it. There are certain points in connection with these subordinate officials which require to be watched. It may be that, at a later stage, these matters will have to be settled, but it would be wrong to delete this particular paragraph, and I cannot support any proposal to delete it.

2.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I am very grateful to my hon. Friends for the spirit in which they have spoken, and I do not want to do what they have refrained from doing, and that is to delay the Committee. But I will say a few words on the chief points raised under this paragraph. Taxation, which though dealt with in detail in the proposed Schedule, really comes under this Sub section, and it may be convenient if I say a word or two about it and then we need not have the general principles discussed over again on the Schedule. I agree that it is a question that wants to be considered. Our representatives in foreign countries are always given this immunity.
It would seem natural, therefore, that the representatives of a group of nations should enjoy the same immunities as are enjoyed by the representatives of one. But the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said it is not quite the same because our representatives, where-ever they go, from China to Peru, are liable to British Income Tax and it may be that the representatives of other countries are liable to their national taxation. An international organisation like this, however, such as the League of Nations and I.L.O., has always been in exactly the same position as will arise under this Bill. They cannot very well have their own special Income Tax. Therefore the only question would be, should they be subject to local taxation in the various countries to which they go? That would certainly be unusual and would create great difficulties. Our Ambassadors and Secretaries know that, wherever they go in the world, the incidence of taxation will be the same, namely British. If you tax the representatives of an international organisation locally, wherever they go, the spendable proportion of their emoluments will, of course, depend entirely on where they are at any given time, and that will be difficult to work out.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not true of every great trading organisation which sends representatives all over the world?

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. For one thing, there are not many trade organisations like international organisations, which send a man one year to one country and one year to another. These people move about all the time. Then, I think, we have to reinforce it by the argument which my hon. Friend used the other day—

Mr. Pethick - Lawrence: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please address the Chair?

The Attorney-General: Certainly I will. The argument used was that in a sense each country by taxing these people to ally would be drawing back part of what it had put into the pool. Supposing there was an international organisation with four foreign Governments, A, B, C and D, all contributing their quota to it, and the officials to be taxed were nearly all in country A. In that case country A would get the benefit of the taxation of a fund


to which all four had contributed equally. I agree that, as was said the other day, it appears somewhat anomolous, but I believe if my hon. Friends and others in the Committee will think it out, it really is the most sensible arrangement for the various nations composing an international body of this kind to adopt with regard to the disposal of their funds.
With regard to the other point about immunity in respect of official acts, I accept, and respectfully agree, with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas). If we agree, as the Committee does, to grant immunity to the organisation, it follows that we must grant immunity in respect of official acts to those who are responsible for its administration. As my right hon. Friend explained, however, that will not be taken down to the doorkeeper and the liftman, but will apply only to those responsible for its administration. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said that to some extent this matter has been negotiated, and indeed has had to be negotiated by our representatives with foreign countries on these lines. He said that in those circumstances he and his friends did not wish to embarrass the Government in regard to playing their part and in conceding to others what others are conceding to the organisation. I am grateful for that, and so is my right hon. Friend. We do not complain in the least of the points that have been raised, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton that it is right and valuable that matters of this kind should be scrutinised by this Committee.
My hon. Friend made a tentative allusion to Amendments which come later on the Paper. I hope he will be satisfied if my right hon. Friend agrees to accept what he has put on the Order Paper as the solution of this problem. That would be, not that the Act expires after five years, but, if his Amendment commends itself to the Committee, that the renewal will be limited to five years. I should think that would be satisfactory. After all, five years hence the House will have had experience of how this thing works, and if it has worked hardship or injustice the House will, no doubt, refuse to renew it. I very much hope that though I may not have wholly convinced my hon.

Friends, they will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Hammersley: Could I ask you, Mr. Williams, on a point of Order, whether a manuscript Amendment—the effect of which would be to cause a list to be made of the subordinate officials as well as a list of the superior officials—would be in Order and whether it would be called?

The Deputy-Speaker: I presume that would be in Order, when we reach that point.

Amendment negatived.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): I beg to move, in line 13, leave out from "Order," to end of line 22, and insert:
to such extent as may be so specified, the immunities and privileges set out in Part III of the Schedule to this Act:
Provided that the Order in Council shall not confer any exemption from taxes or rates upon any person who is a British subject and whose usual place of abode is in the United Kingdom.
This Amendment is in part consequential upon an Amendment which I moved earlier during the Committee stage, the effect of which was to bring the immunities which might be granted under this Bill within the limits defined by the proposed Schedule. Therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything on that part of the Amendment. The second part, however, introduces what, on the face of it, seems to be a new point. By this Amendment it is laid down that the taxation exemptions of Part II and Part III of the Schedule will not apply, that is, the Order in Council will not apply to a person who is a British subject and whose usual place of abode is in the United Kingdom. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear on Second. Reading that it was the intention of the Government operating this Bill that British subjects ordinarily resident here should be excluded from these particular provisions. However, it did not appear on the face of the Bill, and it is the purpose of this Amendment simply to lay down in black and white what was the intention of the Government and what, it is quite evident, is the desire of the Committee.

Mr. Tinker: If a person receiving this immunity drives a motor car and knocks a civilian down, what will be his position under this Clause—in a case


where an ordinary court of law would grant damages? Will he be altogether immune from any case being taken to the court, or will there be some protection for the citizen who gets knocked down?

Mr. Law: I dealt with this point at some length at an earlier stage in the proceedings, but I do not think my hon. Friend was present at the time. The position is that the claim of a civilian knocked down in the street, as in the case suggested by my hon. Friend, would be fully safeguarded. It is quite clear that the case would come before the courts in the ordinary way and it would be arranged with the organisation concerned, and with the insurance company with which that organisation insured for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts, that diplomatic immunity could not be claimed in such a case, the offender would have to pay up, and the victim would be fully compensated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert "paragraphs (b) and (c)."
The purpose of this Amendment is to put the individuals who are covered under paragraph (b)—that is the high officials, and the individuals who are covered under paragraph (c), that is to say, the subordinate officials—in precisely the same category in this respect, that it will be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a list. The Bill as it appears says, in effect, that with respect to the higher officials the Secretary of State must prepare a list, and in respect of the subordinate officials, he may prepare a list. My contention is that it is desirable that a list should be prepared in all cases. We have agreed that the subordinate officials should be exempt from legal process and from Income Tax. I think it must be clear that there must be some dividing line as to what status of person comes within the ambit of these privileges. It has never been the intention of the Government to bring persons of the status of mere servants into its ambit, and I feel that if the Foreign Office have the responsibility of preparing and scrutinising a list of this kind they will be able to see that the list is a proper list, that it does not go too far down the scale, that we shall not be giving immunity from Income Tax and

from legal process to people of the category of doorkeepers and so forth. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment, which puts upon the Foreign Office the responsibility of preparing a list and, in so doing, scrutinising that list. I feel the Committee would not be doing its duty if it left the thing at large and if there were no dividing line.

3.0 p.m.

Sir I. Albery: I support what my hon. Friend has said. It seems to me very desirable that those persons who are to enjoy these exceptional privileges should be clearly defined. The arguments in favour of it have already been put by my hon. Friend and I am not going to repeat them, but I would ask the Minister, or the Attorney-General, when they reply, if they will kindly explain why it is that in the one case they have used the word "shall" and in the other case "may." We have had on former occasions, on different Bills, discussions over the use of this word "may," and in spite of all those discussions I am afraid that I, myself, probably in company with many other hon. Members of this Committee, still remain in somewhat of a fog over what the Government really mean when they use the word "may."

Captain Duncan: I am not quite sure of the full import of this Amendment. I understand that under Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), the Foreign Office should be, asked to compile a list, and I have no doubt they will, but the point in paragraph (b) is that this list, having been compiled, should be published for all concerned to read. That is all right, but if there are to be hundreds of names in the three "Gazettes" it seems to me to be quite stupid. Further, by paragraph (c) the name of whoever is ceasing to have or begins to be entitled to immunity must also be inserted, by an amendment in the list. I can imagine, with the enormous number of changes in minor officials in the various Embassies and international organisations like U.N.R.R.A., that these amendments will be so chaotic as to be unable to be followed intelligently by anybody except the man who is compiling the list and amendments. I am prepared to accept the wording on the understanding that the Foreign Office keeps a list itself.

Mr. Mander: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he would indicate how the matters referred to in this Amendment are dealt with at the present time with regard to Ambassadors and their staffs visiting this country, and also what was the practice in regard to the League of Nations. Personally, I think we ought to do everything possible to facilitate the coming to this country of a new world organisation and those other organisations that will be linked up with it. Unless we do so they will not come here, and while we must properly pay due regard to excess of privileges we ought, if we possibly can, to make things reasonable and to act in the same way as other countries are doing to the same persons when they go there, and as we ourselves have been treated in the past by foreign States.

Sir Herbert Williams: Privileges for foreigners, but not for Britons. I should like to ask the Attorney-General if he will interpret the words "shall" and "may" in this Subsection. Normally, when the word "may" appears we know the Act is conferring an enabling power on a Minister to do something, and, having enabled him to do it, it is his duty to do it. But when, under the same paragraph, we find "shall" and "may," then "may" means what the man in the street understands it to mean—an option, not an order. We want to know why this option is given.

Mr. Law: I fully understand the intention of my hon Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) in moving this Amendment, and I fully sympathise with him in that intention. His purpose is to ensure that the powers which are given under this Bill are not abused and that a situation does not arise in which every single person, whether he is a lift-boy, a door-boy, or anybody, can be brought into the scope of these immunities. He suggests that he will be content, and the Committee will be content, if the Foreign Office demanded a list of the people who were subject to these immunities so that they could keep some kind of check upon what was being done. There is, I think, great force in my hon. Friend's argument, but we are up against the difficulty to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

North Kensington (Captain Duncan) drew attention, and that is, that under the Bill not only has the list to be prepared, but it has to be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast "Gazettes," and every single amendment to the list has to be published also. It seems to me that that would be imposing quite a considerable burden upon the Foreign Office and upon other Departments, and would entail a considerable amount of administrative work which, personally, I would not like to impose upon them unless I thought it was really necessary.
I do not think, in this case, that it is absolutely necessary, and I will try to give the Committee the reasons why I say that, and, in doing so, perhaps, I can deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) as to what is intended by the difference between "may" and "shall" in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3). The reason for the difference is this. The persons entitled to immunity under paragraph (b) are entitled to full diplomatic immunity. That is to say they can go into a shop and order shirts and cigars, or anything else they like—[An HON. MEMBER: "And not pay for them."] It is, obviously, in the interests of the community that the shopkeeper concerned should know that his customer has got diplomatic immunity as, otherwise, he is in a false position. For that reason, people with full diplomatic immunity are listed, as we propose in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3). But with regard to the people who come under paragraph (c) the only kind of immunity they can have is in relation to their official acts. Therefore, anybody with whom they are dealing in an official capacity must know that they are privileged official persons because that is the only reason why they are doing the business at all, and so it is not so necessary to make a list of those whose immunity only covers their official actions.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked me what the practice was with the Diplomatic Corps. The practice as regards the Diplomatic Corps is precisely that which is laid down under this Sub-section. That is to say, diplomats who have full diplomatic immunity are listed, and the lists are pub-


lished, but consuls, who do not have full diplomatic immunity, who have only diplomatic immunity in respect of their official acts, are not listed. It must be assumed that anyone dealing with them officially must know that they are acting in their official capacity. So we are proposing here what is the practice now in the other field. I suggest to my hon. Friends and the Committee that we should pay some attention to the administrative side of this matter, and that we should not impose an additional burden upon the Department unless it is necessary. We will watch the position very carefully, and if our attention is drawn to any abuse of the powers under this Bill we shall avail ourselves of the power under Subsection (3) (a) and, by administrative action, convert "may" into "shall." I hope my hon. Friend will feel that the burden of his point can be met by that, and will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: In order that we may understand the effect of this Amendment we must try to understand the effect of the Clause as it is drafted. The Clause says:
may compile a list of the persons entitled to immunities and privileges conferred under paragraph (c) of that Sub-section.
Would the Attorney-General kindly tell us what difference it would make if those words were left out? Surely the Foreign Office can compile any list they like.

The Attorney-General: If the list procedure is used it exclusively defines those who are entitled to rely on one or the other immunity.

Sir I. Albery: Even taking into account the explanation which has been given by the Minister, I still find myself far from clear. First, we are told that the word "may" is put in with the idea that the Government can, at their discretion, compile these lists. We are told that subordinate officials have no privileges which would be affected by publication of a list. As I understood him the Minister said that higher officials could buy shirts, cigars or whatever it might be, on the plea of diplomatic privilege, and it was, therefore, desirable that a list should be made and published in the "London Gazette" to show tradespeople the kind of person with whom they were dealing. When we come to paragraph (c), under which a list may he made, we are told that these privileges do not appertain to these

people, that they are not exempt. We are told that the Minister has put "may" into the Bill in case these people should do things which they are not able to do. I cannot see what he would effect by making a list. We do not want a list at all, and "may" ought not to have been put into the Bill. The Minister has said, "Although they have no privileges we reserve the right to make a list, and if they abuse the privileges they have not got we can take action" I fail to see the argument.

Sir H. Williams: The Minister of State has opposed the Amendment chiefly on the ground that it would cause a lot of work. But there can only be a lot of work if there are a lot of people. That is what I do not like. He has declared that there will be so many people under Part III that it will he burdensome to the Foreign Office to keep "tabs" on them. That is very disturbing. What is the immunity? Supposing a business man is sent for by U.N.R.R.A., who say to him that they want to buy so many pairs of boots. He will not know whether the man he is talking business with comes under Part III or not. He can only know if a list is published. If it is contemplated that this list will be so large we shall introduce a large privileged class, in fact a class as numerous as the Liberal National party.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Hammersley: I agree that my Amendment as it is worded does not really carry out my intention, which was to see that the Foreign Office had a list which would cover people who would be given these immunities. When the explanation was given that it would be a bad thing to do that because, if they compiled a list, they would be under the necessity of publishing it, and also publishing any alterations to it, I wondered why they had been given this power to make a list at all. It would appear that by putting in the words "may compile a list" the Government have merely put up a facade. There was no intention to make such a list and, that being so, the Committee ought to consider the situation. Why should there not he control of some character? I would be satisfied if the Minister would say that this method of dealing with what is required is not adequate, is administratively impossible and that it is not necessary to publish lists of people


who are merely given consular privileges. That I can understand. But then that ought to be followed by a willingness to insert words in the Bill, or give an undertaking to the Committee, to ensure that the Foreign Office would be in possession of such a list. I think it would be quite wrong for us to give this consular immunity at large, and I press my right hon. Friend to give the Committee some assurance, as I have suggested. If that assurance can be given I would be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. Law: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. If his difficulty can be met by giving the undertaking for which he has just asked I give him that assurance now.

Sir I. Albery: I do not want to make difficulties, but it appears to me that the Bill as at present drafted is not accurate. There is no point in putting into it certain words which have no meaning, which cannot be carried out, and which nobody has any intention of carrying out. I think it would be better if the undertaking which the Minister has just given could be inserted into the Bill on the Report stage.

Mr. Law: I think my hon. Friend is doing less than justice to the Bill when he complains that it is inaccurately drafted and that the latter part of Sub-section (3) (a) is unnecessary in the light of the explanations I have given. I do not think that the final sentence in paragraph (a) is unnecessary. It constitutes a sanction in reserve. It is our intention that these immunities shall be limited, among the subordinate officers and servants of the organisation, to those people to whom it is necessary to give these immunities in order to make the organisation function satisfactorily. I have given the undertaking that the Foreign Office will ask for a list of the people who are getting these immunities and discuss with the organisations concerned the necessity for them. If we remove these words on the ground that they are redundant, our action must stop at that. We can only make our representations to the organisation and, if the organisation refuses to pay attention to them, we have no power under the Bill to make them do anything else; but, as long as we have these words in, if we do not get satisfaction at the first stage we can proceed a stage further and

compile a list which can be published, and only those on the list will have immunity.

Sir I. Albery: I do not think I have made myself clear. I was suggesting that the words in the Bill do not seem adequately to carry out the intention but, if they were removed, that adequate words should be put in to implement the undertaking my right hon. Friend has given, words to the effect that not only shall there be a list of senior officials under paragraph (a) or (b) but, in addition, there shall be in the Foreign Office, without the necessity of publishing it in the "Gazette," a list of those who enjoy privileges under paragraph (c).

Mr. Hammersley: I am satisfied. The Minister has given an assurance that there will be a list, and the existence of that list will make it possible for paragraph (a) to become a reality.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 4, insert new Sub-section
(5) Where privileges and immunities are conferred under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of this Section upon any organisation or person, Section seventy-eight of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relates to the payment of contributions in respect of property owned by a foreign State or the Sovereign or envoy of a foreign State) shall apply to that organisation or person in like manner as it applies to a foreign State or the envoy of a foreign State."—[Mr. Law.]

Mr. Law: I beg to move, in page 3, after the words last added, add:
(6) This Section and the next following Section shall remain in force for the period of five years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and shall then expire:
Provided that, if at any time while the said Sections are in force an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House of Parliament praying that the said Sections shall be continued in force for a further specified period after the time at which they would otherwise expire, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the said Sections shall continue in force for that further period.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking that I gave on Second Reading that there should be some limit in time to the operation of the Bill and that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing it after a period of five years to see how it was working. If Parliament is satisfied at the end of that time that the Bill has operated without disadvantage to any British subject, it is proposed that it shall continue in force for a further specified period.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I appreciate the intention of the Government in proposing this Amendment but I want to ask the Minister of State whether he will not go a little further, not as to the words but as to giving an undertaking. A great deal of the doubts that have been and are still being expressed with regard to the whole matter of the Bill arises from the obsolete character of these immunities and privileges which attach to foreigners resident in this country. They have, of course, existed in some shape or other for a considerable time, certainly running into hundreds of years. To give one illustration, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that it is customary to give wide privileges and immunities to foreign representatives, so to speak, off the record and to enter into separate contracts and arrangements with them that certain of these privileges and immunities will not, in fact, be exercised. Surely that is due to a rather archaic idea of what those privileges and immunities are to be which modern common sense and decency forbid us from carrying to their full effect. Will not the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, before the time comes when the House will have an opportunity of considering whether it wishes these Sections to be continued for a further period, he will endeavour to get some international body to look into the whole matter of these diplomatic privileges and immunities to see whether, in the light of modern facts and circumstances, they ought not to be modified for the future? If he will give us that assurance not only that the whole question will be examined in this country but that, in so far as it is within our power, he will get it done internationally with a view to some revision of the basic ideas underlying diplomatic privileges and immunities, I think the Committee will be much more satisfied than they will be unless that undertaking is given. That seems to me to be at the back of the minds of Members.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, leave out "specified."
I have a second Amendment in the same line, after "period" to insert "not exceeding five years." The Attorney-General intimated that the Government might be inclined favourably to consider these Amendments and, that being so,

hoped that we would not press the Amendment that was then under discussion was not pressed, and I hope the Government will now favourably consider these Amendments to the proposed Amendment. As the Minister pointed out, the proposed Amendment is the fulfilment of a promise given on Second Reading to limit the operation of the Bill. As originally drafted, it was unlimited in time. The Minister now says that he is willing to limit it to five years, subject to a proviso that a further extension may be granted. I wish that that further extension in turn shall be limited to five years. My purpose is to ensure that this Bill does not too long escape the further consideration of the House. It affects a large number of persons, and many of us feel strongly about it, but the Government are anxious to have these powers. Therefore, we ask that they shall be limited in time.

Mr. Mander: I should like to support the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).

Mr. Petherick: I rose to speak on the proposed Amendment, but I understand that it is out of Order until the Amendment to the Amendment has been dealt with.

The Chairman (Major Milner): We shall have to dispose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment first.

Mr. Law: My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) is a far-seeing man. He wants to know not only what the position will be five years from now, but what it will be five years after that. I do not think that the Amendments that he proposes to my Amendment are in any way unreasonable. As he says, he and some of his hon. Friends have misgivings about this Bill, They want to ensure that the procedure adumbrated by the Bill does not get beyond the control of the House of Commons, and I can see no possible objection to the procedure which he suggests. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: In line 5, after "period," insert "not exceeding five years."—[Mr. Lewis.]

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

Mr. Mander: I thought that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) was a good one, because many misgivings which are reasonably felt by hon. Members on the other side might be cleared up if we had a proper appreciation of diplomatic privileges. The present privileges are archaic and have grown up over many centuries. If we were starting now we should never dream of giving these privileges. We have not only the Dumbarton Oaks organisation but other organisations as well; and they will present new problems. Any inquiry should be international because this is a problem that affects all countries. We could hardly do it on our own. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend how far other countries among the United Nations are granting similar privileges to members of these organisations when they go to other countries. We cannot afford to be behind them. We want to be on the same basis, and the best way of getting on to a reasonable basis in all countries is to have an inquiry in which all the United Nations can take part.

Mr. Petherick: I hope that it will not be believed by the Government that all Members of the Committee are in favour of an international inquiry into diplomatic privileges as a whole. These privileges have grown up over many centuries, and, on the whole, although occasionally they have been open to challenge, they have been necessary in the same way and for the same reasons as the privileges of Members of Parliament are necessary. They are necessary to enable diplomats and Members of Parliament to carry on their jobs. Such privileges are immunity from arrest, freedom from lawsuits of a controversial and political nature, extraterritoriality of an embassy or legation, freedom to communicate in cipher, and so on. It would lead to all kinds of international backbiting and legalistic quarrels if the whole question, which has been reasonably interpreted for centuries, were now raised at some international conference, particularly when every country in the world, as a result of the war and Dumbarton Oaks, will have more than it can stomach in the next few years Therefore, I hope that the Government

will not think that the House of Commons is unanimous in this matter.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I ask the Government to believe that the feelings that have been expressed on this Bill are due to the muddled condition in which we find these matters, and not to any puckish attitude. It has been felt that large numbers of people should not be added to the list of those enjoying diplomatic immunity without being scrutinised. I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr.Petherick), but am rather inclined to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I do not think, however, that it is necessary to have an official international inquiry. The Foreign Office could well inquire in a private way what was the position in other countries, so as to find out what exactly were the immunities granted to our officials in different countries abroad. We could in this way see whether we could build up a common practice and see how far we could improve our own attitude to diplomatic immunity. We have been told that diplomatic immunity is an old thing. It is also an extremely muddled thing, so muddled, indeed, that in the reign of Queen Anne this House endeavoured by an Act of Parliament to establish what diplomatic immunity was. We base ourselves on that Act, but things have been very unsatisfactory ever since in some respects. All sorts of torts and crimes have been committed and diplomatic immunity has been pleaded, not always with success. The position should be clarified and I suggested on the Second Reading of the Bill that an amending Statute to this Statute of Queen Anne should be considered some time in future after correlating all the facts from the inquiry I have suggested.
There is another point which I should like to put to the Committee. The Amendment asks that the Act should be renewed by an Address of both Houses in five years, after which the Act could be extended for a further period. In view of what has been said to-day as to the need for an inquiry into the state of diplomatic immunity generally, would it not be better for the Government to come to the House in five years' time with a new Bill? They would in the ordinary way have had considerable experience, and they would have


also the results of the inquiry which has been suggested and the experience of the working of the Act. Instead of coming for an address automatically renewing the Act, let the Government come forward with a new Bill which will rectify whatever has been found to be imperfect in the working of this Measure.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I am glad that the Minister of State has been able to limit the period of the Bill in the way in which he has. On the Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that the Bill in its original form would make a permanent alteration in our law, which would not be desirable when we merely wished to deal with a situation of a temporary character. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which would have limited the life of the Bill in a certain way; but it is right to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has met me very handsomely. I am not sure that the Amendment which he has moved is not more satisfactory in some ways than the Amendment which I should have moved myself, had it been selected.
Let me say something on the point which was raised by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I am disposed to agree with him that some inquiry into the present conditions under which diplomatic privileges are granted has become desirable. Diplomatic privilege, as I understand it, had its origin in the privilege granted by one sovereign to another, as part of the international courtesy which was once exchanged between sovereign Powers. It has grown into a very much greater and more widespread system of immunity than was ever intended in the circumstances in which it arose. At the time of its origin, there was some advantage in extending it, on a fairly wide scale, so as to obtain immunity for all representatives from the laws of foreign Powers. In those days reciprocity was very well worth having. We sent our representatives to countries whose legal systems were often very different from our own, and had they become subject to those systems they would have been liable to penalties of a character unknown to our own municipal laws. Conditions have changed very substantially. The legal and criminal systems of nations have been assimilated to a very considerable extent. I believe that there are still countries in which the accused

person is expected to plead guilty, a procedure not hitherto known to our Criminal Law. But these countries are not very numerous.
In these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come when we ought to consider whether any real advantage is obtained by extending these immunities over the very wide field to which they have become extended, and whether there is really any practical advantage left in extending them to every servant and every clerk of every Ambassador and of every international organisation.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that so long as other countries go on offering these inducements we are bound to do so?

Mr. Hutchinson: I was saying a moment ago that the advantages of reciprocity seem to me to be very much less than they once were. I would answer my hon. Friend in that way. Let me say in conclusion that it seems to me that the time has now come when, no doubt in conjunction with other nations, it would be desirable if the whole field of diplomatic privilege could be reviewed and we considered whether it is still necessary or desirable that this privilege be extended, as it now is, over a large number of persons.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Law: My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) suggested that we should make an inquiry into what privileges were accorded to us in other countries. I can assure him that no inquiry is necessary, because we already know. They are the privileges which we accord in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked me further whether there was anything to ensure that other countries were treating international organisations in the same way that we were proposing to treat them under the Bill. I can give him that assurance. In the case of U.N.R.R.A., every Member Government of U.N.R.R.A. has given exactly the same undertaking as we have done. My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen that there is a provision in Clause 4 of the Bill which definitely ensures reciprocity of treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton went on to say that he would very much rather have a new Bill in five years' time. There is


nothing in the Bill to prevent him having a new Bill then if he wants it. If, in five years' time, my hon. Friend is still as eloquent and persistent as he has been recently, I think the chances are that he will get his new Bill, unless the Government of the day has exceptional stamina. I can give him the assurance, if it is any comfort to him. I do not think I should ever be tempted to describe him as being puckish.
The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) raised what is clearly an important point. He suggested, and some other hon. Members supported him, that we should give an undertaking that we would look into the position of diplomatic privilege with a view to modifying it. I can see the point of view of my right hon. Friend and hon. Members who supported him, but I would not agree to the proposition that just because something has been in existence for a very long time and has worked very well during that time it should therefore be changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) did, I think, put his finger on the crux of this problem. He said that, after all, immunities and privileges of this kind were like the immunities and privileges which Members of Parliament enjoy. They are given simply in order to enable them to carry out their job. I do not think we ought lightheartedly to contemplate anything that would make it more difficult for diplomats to carry out their job. At the same time I can see that there is considerable uneasiness in the minds of many hon. Members.
I would, however, point out to them that it is impossible for me to give an undertaking to the effect that we will review international practice, and that if, from our particular point of view, international practice seems undesirable then international practice will be changed. Obviously, I cannot give that undertaking, and if I did so it would be meaningless. It is not within our power to change international practice. Clearly anything that was done would have to be done with the agreement of other nations. My right hon. Friend suggested that we should call a conference or instigate a conference to consider this matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, I think it was,

who said we had a full enough plate. At the moment we have a great deal to do and it would, I think, be a pity to try to call the nations of the world together at this moment of time to consider this particular problem. However, I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that we shall watch very carefully the operation not only of this Bill but of diplomatic privileges and immunities as a whole, and if it seems to us to be necessary to suggest to other nations that action should be taken we shall make that suggestion to them. I do not think I can go further than that on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the 'Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas: There is one point about which I should like a little reassurance. I do not disagree with the principle of the Bill. People who exercise diplomatic functions should not be impeded in doing so. That, I think, is the basis for making an extenson of diplomatic privilege. But this extension is made at the expense of depriving British citizens of rights they would normally have. During the course of our discussions it appears to have been suggested that the only case in which people might have claims against individuals or organisations who enjoy diplomatic immunity is that of road accidents. There are a great many other vicissitudes of life which might give British citizens perfectly good claims against people who are granted these immunities, and they ought to be protected in some way.
If immunity is granted for the benefit of the State, in order to facilitate international relationships, the State ought to assume the responsibility of compensating British nationals who have proper claims which they are debarred from pursuing. One can assume a great many cases in which such claims could properly be made. Let us suppose that an international organisation has a building in which there is a lift which is allowed to get into a defective condition, and some innocent person, calling there properly upon business, meets with an accident. Is that person to be deprived of all remedy, or should he be granted something in compensation or in lieu of the


right of which he has been deprived? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be proper, in cases of that kind, if anybody is deprived of his legal remedy, for the Government to assume the obligation of compensating him. That is, in effect, the circumstance which has arisen during the course of the present war; the Government have undertaken the obligation of compensating people who are deprived of the opportunity of pursuing claims against foreign nationals or organisations who are in this country. That principle ought to be established so that the granting of diplomatic immunity should not also carry automatically the corollary of depriving British citizens of compensation to which they are properly entitled.

The Attorney-General: I cannot think that would be a good idea. It might encourage people to acts of great recklessness if, however many of our citizens they knocked down, we would meet the bill for damages. My right hon. Friend explained that in the case of motor accidents, which are the most common, though I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite that they are not the only ones, a very satisfactory procedure has been laid down. The reason for that is, no doubt, that such a case has arisen more than once and, therefore, one has got what may be described as a regular practice with regard to it. What my right hon. Friend said in regard to motor accidents is really evidence of the general attitude in which foreign Governments and these organisations ought to, and will, meet cases of this kind. I think it is rather striking that in the course of this very full discussion, in which many Members are rather critical of this whole business, the only case that was brought forward was one as long ago as 1933, one which, indeed, caused our Government to take the line which has really led to a satisfactory arrangement with regard to motor car accidents.
I hope my hon. Friend and the Committee will trust the Foreign Office to use every influence, as they have done successfully in the past, to see that these immunities do not result in hardships to private individuals by dopriving them of compensation to which they are entitled. In the case put by my hon. Friend, which I think was not one of negligence but defective structure, my right hon. Friend

said that is a case where we should—perhaps "insist" is the wrong word—be satisfied that on representations being made the organisations, whether an international organisation like this, or a foreign Government, would waive the immunity, if a satisfactory settlement was not arrived at and they were disputing liability. Therefore, although I fully appreciate the great importance of seeing that these immunities are so used that injustices of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind do not arise, I hope that experience of the past will encourage him. One thing that is clear from the Debates of this Committee is that in the future the working of this Bill and of these immunities generally will be closely scrutinised, and if it is felt that there are injustices the attention of the Government will be called to them.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

4.0 p. m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at end, add:
Provided that every such Order in Council shall cease to have effect if it is not laid before Parliament within twenty days of the date on which it was made.
It will be within the recollection of the Committee that, some months ago, it transpired that a number of Statutory Orders relating to the National Fire Service which, under the terms of the Act of Parliament under which they were made, ought to have been laid before Parliament had, in fact, owing to an omission on the part of the Department, never been laid before Parliament at all. Accordingly, it became necessary, as the Committee will recollect, for the Government to introduce a Bill to relieve the Home Secretary of any responsibilities which might otherwise have descended upon him in consequence of that omission. In the course of the Debates on that Bill, it became evident that opinion was divided as to the legal consequences of a failure to lay a Statutory Order before Parliament in the manner prescribed by the Act under which that Statutory Order was made. If my recollection is right, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was inclined to take the view that the


effect of failure to lay the Order before Parliament was that the Order lost legal validity: there were other Members, who had studied the question and were qualified to form an opinion, who considered that, notwithstanding that the Order had never been laid before Parliament as it should have been laid, its legal validity remained unaffected. In those circumstances, my hon. Friends and I, who have taken an interest in this matter, thought it right that the matter should be cleared up, and that the Clause, which is commonly inserted in an Act of Parliament, requiring these Statutory Rules and Orders to be laid before Parliament, should be amended in such a manner as to make it clear beyond the possibility of doubt that if, in fact, the Orders never were laid before Parliament, they should cease to have the force of law. The next Bill which came before this House on which this matter arose was this Bill. Accordingly, this Amendment was put down, in order to ensure that the Orders in Council which are to be made under this Bill shall cease to have legal effect if they are not laid before Parliament within a certain prescribed time.
All this happened some months ago. Last week I addressed a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking what progress had been made with the consideration of this matter. In reply, he informed me that the question of the steps which were to he taken to ensure that Parliament has its opportunity of seeing these Orders, and, what is more important, of taking, the action which is open to Parliament with regard to these Statutory Orders, was under active consideration. It may be too much to hope that that active consideration had resulted in a conclusion between last week and this afternoon. But I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, or whoever replies, will be able to give an assurance that before very long some proposal will be made to Parliament, to remedy this defect which has appeared in our procedure for dealing with Statutory Orders.
The Committee, of course, will not underestimate the importance of these Orders being laid before Parliament, in accordance with the Act of Parliament. Parliament has certain rights in connection with these Orders. We have in some

cases the right to pray that the Order should be annulled! In other cases a different course takes place. The important point is that, unless these Orders are duly laid before Parliament, Parliament is unable to exercise that control which it has always jealously sought to retain over delegated legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Attorney-General, or whoever deals with this Amendment, will be able to give us an assurance that before very long it is proposed to announce what steps are to be taken to make good the defect which the events of last summer disclosed.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of the words in the Clause. The effect is that the House of Commons, equally with another place, has a positive initiative in this matter. The Orders in Council do not arise at all unless this House has previously presented—

The Attorney-General: I think my right hon. Friend is mixing up the Order in Council under which the Bill can be renewed with the Orders in Council referred to in the Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If I am incorrect in that, I will not proceed with my argument.

Mr. Petherick: I wish to support the Amendment. The object is perfectly clear. At the time of King Charles 11, if my historical memory is correct, we passed an Act of Indemnity and Oblivion. Recently we passed an Act of Indemnity to absolve the Home Secretary from some unfortunate mistakes of the Home Office, but we did not add the words "and of Oblivion"— quite rightly, I think; because we have not forgotten the incident, although I think we let the Home Secretary down very lightly at the time. This may happen again, and it is very important that we should, at the earliest possible moment, insert words into a Bill, during its passage through this House—which we hope may become common form in all such Acts—to make it obligatory, when an Order has to be tabled, that it shall be tabled within a certain time, so that the unhappy incident in which the Home Secretary was involved shall not take place a second time. This is a Government protection Measure, and I hope that the Government will,


therefore, in their own interests, see fit to accept it. Some months ago we were given to understand that conversations were proceeding, at a fairly high level, with a view to finding a suitable form of words. I hope that they were really conversations, and not conversaziones—which the Minister of State, with his command of languages, as a representative of the Foreign Office, knows, means something entirely different. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to tell us that the Government have come to a conclusion, and that they will be able to insert either this form of words or some other form.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having put down the Amendment, but I hope that it will not be pressed, for reasons which I think my hon. and learned Friend anticipated, and which I will endeavour to give. It is quite true that, at the time of the discussions on the Fire Service Orders, the Government undertook to look into this matter in two directions: first of all, with a view to tightening up the administrative machinery so as to ensure that what had happened would not happen again, and, second, with a view to considering whether legislation might be desirable to produce the first result which my hon. and learned Friend has referred to, namely, to secure that if Orders were not laid they should become invalid.
It is a little more complicated than one might think, because the Order may have to be effective as soon as issued; then the Act says it must be laid, and, of course, it ought to be laid. Then the question is, Within what time must it be laid and what happens if it is not laid within that time? I wish I could give a final decision, but I am not in a position to do that. The Prime Minister once used a phrase, when somebody was asking when something would be done: "There will be an interval of time, but there will be no delay." I think my hon. Friends are thinking that, in this case, there may be an interval of time and delay, but I think they will appreciate that there are a number of things to do, though we have not been idle, and I will give my personal assurance that I will see that a conclusion is come to as soon as possible. I think it would be more satisfactory not to start putting into an isolated Bill a form of words which might lead to difficulties of construction

arising under it. I hope that, in view of that, my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Petherick: May I point out a difficulty? The Attorney-General said that we cannot put it into an isolated Bill. I do not see how it can possibly be embodied in a general code of law, because there is no general code of law for it to be embodied in, and, as it has to be embodied in something, it could be embodied in the first isolated Bill that comes along? Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that he will consider it, in any Bill about to be presented, and before the Bill comes along?

The Attorney-General: If it is understood that nothing I say now can be regarded as any indication of what the Government will decide, I can say this: One of the possible things suggested was that we should merely deal with the future, I have however considered a provision, which would make it clear, where these words occurred in existing Acts, without going back, over Orders made what the position is to be as regards new Orders issued under old Acts and the laying of such Orders. That was what I was referring to when I said we might deal with it generally and not merely in future Bills. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that, if it is merely a question of putting words in some future Bills, we shall have to make a start some day, and I will see if we can make a start as soon as possible.

Mr. Hutchinson: I can see the advantage, as the Attorney-General has said, of applying whatever solution may be proposed, not only to those Acts which will be passed in future, but to those Acts which are already on the Statute Book, and, in the hope that the interval of time to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred will not be unduly prolonged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Duncan: I did not intervene in the discussion on the Amendment, because it seemed to me rather a narrow point, but in the Debate on Second Reading I raised the question whether this negative procedure was appropriate to this Bill, and whether it would not be preferable to


have the positive procedure in dealing with an important matter like this. Instead of the Order in Council being effective unless somebody in the House of Commons moved a Prayer against it, the Order should not be effective until there was a positive Resolution of the House in favour of it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in replying to me, said that was a Committee point and that he would like to deal with it there. This is the opportunity for the Minister to reply on this point. I do not want to press the matter now, but I understand that conversations on a high level are going on about precedents, not about the narrow point of the Amendment, and I would like my right hon. Friend to say that, if the decision is made, and if this type of Order in Council is of sufficient importance, as I think it is, to warrant the positive procedure, he will, from the Foreign Office point of view, raise no objections to this Bill being included in the positive procedure.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When I intervened a little while ago, I had not quite grasped that there were two types of Orders in Council that would, if the Amendment were carried, conflict with Clause 1. As I understand it, Clause 2 will apply both to Orders in Council under the original Bill and also to that particular type of Order in Council under the Amendment we have carried to Clause 1.

The Attorney-General: No. The Order in Council extending the Act, if it becomes an Act, requires an affirmative Resolution. The Orders which are subject to a negative Resolution are Orders made under Clause 1 naming the organisations and setting out the immunities.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I quite understand that, but do I understand the Attorney-General to say that the provisions in the Clause now under consideration do not apply to an Order in Council carried as an Amendment? It is an important point. If they do not apply, then the result of the Amendment carried just recently, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), definitely brings Sections 1 and 2 to an end in ten years' time. If, on the other hand, Clause 2 does apply, then the fourth Sub-section of Clause 2 will enable the Government, after every

period of five years, to carry the Bill forward, and, therefore, the Bill will not come to an end in ten years' time because modifying Orders for a further period of five years can be made every five years. The point is of considerable importance. I do not see on what grounds the Attorney-General takes the view that those Orders in Council which arise under Sub-section (2, c) of Clause 1 are excluded from the provisions of Clause 2. I am quite aware that an Order in Council under Sub-section (2, c) requires an affirmative antecedent Resolution of both Houses, whereas an Order in Council under Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 does not require any antecedent affirmative Resolution. It does not say, in Clause 2, "an Order in Council made under Subsection (1) of Clause 1"; it says, "in the last foregoing Section," and I should have thought it applied equally to those under Sub-section (2, c) and those under Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. I should be glad if the Attorney-General will give us some information about that.

The Attorney-General: I did not make myself clear, perhaps. As I read the Bill, this Clause 2 applies to all Orders in Council under the Bill as originally drafted, including those under Subsection (2). What it does not apply to is a Resolution for extending it, for a further period of five years. If I said anything to suggest that I thought Clause 2 did not apply to the same Orders in Council as Clause 1, I must have used words which I did not intend.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I still do not understand the learned Attorney-General's point. Do I understand him now to say that Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 will not apply to the Orders in Council which have been carried in the Amendment relating to Sub-section (2, c) of Clause I.

The Attorney-General: It will apply.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: So that in fact the Bill can be extended for a further period of five years by the introduction of a fresh Order in Council.

The Attorney-General: I have done my best to explain.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I will try to make it a little clearer. The Bill runs for five years. Before the expiry of five years an Order in Council can be laid in both Houses of Parliament for the provision to be extended.

The Attorney-General: Surely, my right hon. Friend is again wrong. The Amendment to Clause 1, introducing Sub-section (6) has nothing to do with Sub-section (2, c) of Clause 1.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is rather complicated, but Clause 2 (4) refers to "any such Order in Council." If these words relate to the new Amendments in Clause 1, Sub-section (2c) that enables the Government to modify or revoke an Order in Council which has been extended for five years by another one. I may be wrong, but perhaps the Attorney-General will look into the matter. It is rather difficult on the spur of the moment to be sure of the effect of the words, but perhaps he will look into the point between now and the Report stage.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not desire to go into the complications which exist but I would like to support what my hon. Friend has said. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make an attempt to reverse the procedure in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), in order that there shall be an affirmative Resolution instead of a negative Resolution. We have carried an Amendment to Clause 1, in the form of a new Sub-section (6), which provides for an affirmative Resolution and it seems to be a pity to have two separate principles in one small Bill.

The Attorney-General: I profoundly disagree with what has fallen from my Noble Friend that it is a mistake to have two forms of Resolution in one Bill, even if it is a short, one. I do not want to enter into controversy, but, broadly speaking, there is or should be an affirmative Resolution where it is a case of amending the Bill or extending its life, as that is something which affects the Bill as a whole. Where we are doing something under the Bill, perhaps the right procedure is a negative Resolution. I am very grateful to my hon. Friends for the way they have raised the point. I think we can say that we were right when we moved the new Sub-section (6) providing for an affirmative Resolution. The Government of the day must come to Parliament and say, "We ask you to scratch out 'five' and put in 'ten'." Our proposals involve an affirmative Resolution for one provision and a negative one for the other cases. The negative Resolution probably is right for Orders in

Council dealt with under Sub-section (2). I cannot forecast what the decisions will be on this topic and how it will be related to things that we have passed, in relating negative procedure to the original Orders and an affirmative one to an extension of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman raised a point and I did not quite follow it but I should think that is very likely my fault. He may be right that there should be a consequential Amendment to Clause 2, make it plain that all it contains about negative procedures is related to Orders in Council under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 2 and that it does not apply to the affirmative procedure which arises under the new Sub-section (6). I might move a manuscript Amendment making it clear that Clause 2 only applies to Orders in Council under Sub-sections (1) and (2). I think that will clear up the difficulty in his mind.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Reciprocal treatment.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Duncan: I wish to raise a small point on the question of reciprocity. Under the normal diplomatic arrangements there is reciprocity with regard to relief of rates. We had a case in Kensington where the reciprocity did not work in regard to Siam. There is no municipal rating at Bangkok, with the result that the reciprocity did not work. But the Siamese Legation would not pay rates, claiming diplomatic immunity, and the Foreign Office would not make a contribution in lieu of rates, thus increasing the payments of other ratepayers of Kensington. That is one of the unfortunate things which cannot happen very often, but the position should be dealt with under Clause 4, which I am very glad to see in the Bill. When we come to U.N.R.R.A. and some of those other organisations, where are we going to be about things like that? In ordinary diplomatic representation there is always reciprocity between Sovereign States, but U.N.R.R.A. is not a Sovereign State, it is an international organisation. I should like to know, especially as in the Schedule we


are deliberately including rates in the immunities, what will be the position of the rating authorities. I shall be grateful it my right hon. Friend can reassure me on that point, and inform the unfortunate ratepayers of the borough concerned whether they are going to have to suffer in this way in future.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I hope that too much will not be made of this because, quite clearly, foreign missions coming to this country bring far more spending power with them than the ratepayers of Kensington have lost in rates.

Mr. Law: The proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) is clearly one of substance, and I think the ratepayers might have a legitimate grievance if, as a result of the operation of this Bill, the organisation—whatever it might be—were relieved of the obligation to pay rates and, by such relief, a greater burden were thrown upon the existing ratepayers. I am glad to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend an assurance that, to the extent to which one of these organisations is relieved of rate, no additional burden shall fall upon the local authority concerned. The relief will be made up to it by the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

A SCHEDULE (Immunities and Privileges)

PART I.

Immunities and privileges of the organisation.

1. Immunity from suit and legal process.
2. The like inviolability of official archives and premises occupied as offices as is accorded in respect of the official archives and premises of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.
3. The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power.
4. Exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organisation for its official use in the United Kingdom or for exportation, such exemption to be subject to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe for the protection of the Revenue.

PART II.

Immunities and privileges of high officers and government representatives.

1. The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.
2. The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.
3. The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to such an envoy.

PART III.

Immunities and privileges of other officers and servants.

1. Immunity from suit and legal process in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official duties.
2. The following exemption or relief from taxes and rates:

(a) in any case of a British subject who is a national or citizen of, or belongs to, any part of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom and would, if he were not a British subject, be qualified to receive the immunities and privileges set out in Part II of this Schedule, the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty;
(b) in any other case exemption from Income Tax in respect of emoluments received as an officer or servant of the organisation." —[Mr. Law.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Law: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
It is, in fact, consequential upon other Amendments which the Committee have accepted, and accordingly I will, with the permission of the Committee, move it formally.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask one question which I raised on the Second Reading? We were told that members of U.N.R.R.A. and other organisations here would be able to insure, in fact, would be forced to insure, against motor accidents. I put a question, but my right hon. and learned Friend did not refer to it when he replied, as to what happened about other torts, such as defamatory statements, committed by members of such organisations. Are they to be completely immune from any legal process in the courts? Large numbers of people in the course of business or social life are liable, in moments of excitement or in the course of furthering their business interests, to utter defamatory statements concerning either firms or persons. I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend, if he can give it, as to what


provision is made for them to be liable to the process of the courts.

Mr. Petherick: I think the Government have largely met the objections of a great many of us in the Amendments they have put down, but I would like to point out a small matter to which I have drawn attention privately in regard to this Schedule. Amongst the other exemptions which U.N.R.R.A., or one of these similar organisations, would get is exemption from taxes on goods
directly imported by the organisation for its official use in the United Kingdom or for exportation.
It seems to me that those words "for its official use" may be open to a certain amount of misconception. I understand that the Government views on that phrase mean that U.N.R.R.A., for example, can import typewriters from America to be used wherever its offices may be. It can import canned pilchards to be sent to some unfortunate starving country in Europe, and to those classes of goods I should have no objection whatever. However, I am inclined to think, subject to correction, that the words "official use" may go rather wider than the Government intend. They might have two meanings: one, for the official use of the organisation, and the other for the use of the officers of the organisation. Suppose U.N.R.R.A., owing to the generosity of the Foreign Office, takes over the Foreign Office building and establishes its office there; it might run a canteen in the dungeons below the Foreign Office and import wine free of duty for use in that canteen by its officers. Would that be for official use or not? I should be inclined to maintain that it might very well he claimed that those words might cover wine and cigars and everything else that can be imported, so that a good time is had by all the officers of the Association. If there is the slightest degree of doubt, I would suggest the insertion of suitable words. I was wondering whether the Government would consider the insertion of "in the performance of its official duties" in Part III of the Schedule which relates to the junior officers of these organisations. Thus, Sub-section 4 of Part I would read as follows:
Exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organisation for its official use in the performance of its official duties…

I believe that would make that part of the Schedule incontrovertibly correct, and would carry out what I believe to be the intention of the Government.

Sir I. Albery: I understand that all three parts of the Schedule are now under discussion and I wish to make a few remarks about the Third Schedule. Before we part with it, I want to make quite sure that we correctly understand the effect of it. As I understand the Third Schedule in its relation to the junior officers of these organisations, it appears to mean this, that any official of foreign nationality, or any official from one of the British Dominions, would be free of Income Tax and, as I read it, free of rates. However, any person of English nationality domiciled in England employed by one of these organisations would be subject to rates and subject to full Income Tax. If that assumption is incorrect I would be gladly interrupted, because I do not want to pursue the matter in the sense in which I now intend to pursue it if I have wrongly understood it.

The Attorney-General: I think I know what the point is. It is a little complicated but, as my hon. Friend and the Committee will remember, British subjects are primarily excluded from what we call the top rank immunities under the Bill. 2(a) of Part III makes a limited exception to that. It says that if we have here someone who comes from the Dominions someone who, though a British subject, belongs to what is sometimes called an overseas part of the Empire, if he comes here as a high official of U.N.R.R.A.—that is, in the top grade —he does not get immunity from suit but he does get immunity from rates and taxes because he is a top man. Under the Schedule dealing with the lower officials the only exemption they get in respect of tax is exemption from Income Tax on their official emoluments. They do not get exemption from rates. I hope I have made myself clear.

Sir I. Albery: I find my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation is a little difficult to reconcile with the reading of Part III, which states:
In any other case exemption from Income Tax in respect of emoluments received…
Just before this it states:
The following exemption or relief from taxes and rates…

The Attorney-General: Paragraph 2 (a) of Part III covers rates in the case of the high official who comes from an overseas part of the Empire. That is why the word "rates" comes in paragraphs (a) but not in (b).

Sir I. Albery: Do I understand that a junior official, an English citizen, will have to pay full Income Tax, but that a foreigner, or someone from British Dominions, will be free from Income Tax?

The Attorney-General: Yes, if he is a British subject ordinarily resident here.

Sir I. Albery: I want to draw attention to that and have it put on record, because I think it is a most important matter. We are approaching the time when we shall need every facility for export trade, and for getting back old markets, with new ones, all over the world. One of the most important things in this connection is that there should be a large number of people in this country who have a knowledge of foreign languages and customs, and who can help us to get back our lost trade. By Part III of the Schedule we are practically setting up organisations which will be encouraged in every way to employ foreigners, and strangers who have knowledge of foreign languages, to the exclusion of British subjects. They will probably need to employ foreign correspondents and a good deal of clerical staff with some knowledge of foreign languages and it appears to me that if a junior official gets £700 or £800 a year he will, if he is a foreigner, receive that amount free of tax, while if he is an Englishman he will get only £500 or £600 a year. In those circumstances it will not be possible to attract to this kind of employment the same class of British subject as foreign subjects. I am one of those who wish to encourage the employment of a certain number of foreigners in this country in peace-time, because it is helpful to our international relationships in trade and commerce. At the same time it is vitally important to our own people that they should have employment and be encouraged to make themselves efficient. I know it is hoped that a considerable number of these organisations will be located in London, and it is a matter for serious consideration whether our people should suffer a hindrance of that kind in taking up employment of this nature.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Attorney-General tell us whether "taxes and rates" cover Customs Duties? Last night an aircraft came back from Paris with British and American officers aboard. The British were subject to a Customs examination and payment of duty on the goods they had imported. The American officers were allowed to go through, which caused a certain amount of concern on the part of the British representatives. We passed an Act in 1942 which has not worked quite so well as the House thought it would. Can we have an assurance that "taxes and rates" do not apply to Customs Duties, because this is an important matter and concerns people who find they are discriminated against in such cases as the one I have just quoted?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) about Customs Duties. In Part I of the Schedule a distinction is made between taxes and rates in paragraph (3) and taxes an the importation of goods in paragraph (4). When we get to Parts II and III there is no distinction made, and we talk of taxes and rates in each case. I am especially concerned with the position of the junior official in one of these organisations, who is not British and is, therefore, given immunity from taxes. I would like to ask the Attorney - General whether "taxes" in that sense include Customs Duty—in other words, whether these junior officials will be able to import for their own use merchandise from foreign countries free of Customs Duty?

The Attorney-General: May I deal with the Noble Lord's point first, which is a simple one? Although I quite agree that the word "taxes" may be used in two senses, all a junior official gets is laid down in Part III, paragraph (2) (b), which expressly refers to Income Tax. Income Tax does not include taxes on imported goods. The only immunity he gets is in respect of Income Tax.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does he not get exemption from taxes and rates under paragraph 2 (a) if he is not a British subject?

The Attorney-General: No, paragraph 2 (a) merely applies to British subjects who are high officials, and


who would get the full exemption accorded to high officials but for the fact that they are British subjects. Paragraph (a) provides that though we do not give them immunity from suit, they do get immunity from taxes and rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised a question about other torts. I gather that he was talking about the lower grade people.

Mr. Bowles: Yes.

The Attorney-General: In the course of official duties protection applies. For instance, there are many consuls who have similar protection if they make reports to their countries on trade matters. Such is the nature of the world that sometimes they have to report that a trader is not wholly satisfactory, in terms which may give a prima facie cause for defamation. But if the report is made in the course of official action he is protected. Of course, there may be cases which lead to injustice or hardship. But these are cases in which immunity may be waived or which the Foreign Office must take up. It is, however, necessary to grant the immunity in order that the work can be done in a proper way unimpeded. Some countries are more disturbed than this and these immunities may be more necessary there than here. The way in which these things are approached is important. If it is found that this immunity in respect of official acts covers something unnecessary —someone suggested it might cover a defective lift, when the lift was endeavouring to take people from one floor to another —in such a case it might be waived.

Mr. Bowles: The immunity is either in the head of the organisation or in the individual. The British Ministry cannot say, "You must waive immunity." The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to other countries which have not so much law and order as we have and said a person might commit assault and battery.

The Attorney-General: I did not say that.

Mr. Bowles: No, I am saying that. Is that another tort to be exempted or not? An exaggerated report on the financial insufficiency of a firm can be understood, but one can imagine positions in which an excited consul or other representative might go further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.

The Attorney-General: I made it clear earlier that we cannot insist on immunity being waived but we can make representations. We have the advantage that we ourselves are a member of this organisation and therefore have influence both from within and from without. Although these immunities have existed in respect of foreign Governments for a long time—and in the last decade or so the League of Nations and the have also been protected—the one instance of resulting injustice brought forward was in 1933. This immunity in respect of officials acts has been enjoyed by consuls. Some time ago I went into that and, although many consuls hold temporary appointments, I could find practically no case where anyone could claim that immunity was being abused. I think the answer to the hon. Member is that there may be torts in the course of official acts. I cannot imagine that a body like this would regard assault and battery as something done in accordance with official duties. I think we may rest assured that there will not be abuse.
As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) we read "official use" as meaning "use by the office." If it meant use by the "officers," it might cover almost anything. We certainly do not intend that it should be used to cover drinks for consumption at home or in a canteen. I am not sure whether it would really add much to say "in the course of their official duties," because I think "official" could be used as possibly covering a canteen. I do not wish to seem to be unreasonable, but the matter is entirely in our own control. My hon. Friend may be right but I am not too sure about it. It might be said it is part of the duty to-day of a body which has a big office to make canteen arrangements, and the same argument be raised about official duties.

Mr. Petherick: Is it not necessary, therefore, to put in words to make it plain that that particular exemption does not refer to a canteen? Running down His Majesty's lieges may happen in the performance of official duty, but I do not see how guzzling in a canteen in their own office can be a performance of their official duties.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend points his argument by using the word "guzzling." I do not want to have an


argument about it. I hope my hon. Friend and the Committee will accept this statement. We construe "official" as meaning "for the office." On that basis liquor for the canteen would not be entitled to tax exemption. I think it will be better than trying to get a form of words which might give rise to difficulties. I hope that statement will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for raising the point as it is desirable that it should be made clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) raised a point about British subjects. We did not feel inclined to give taxation immunities, which we extend to those who come here from overseas, to British subjects ordinarily resident here. We thought the Committee might object to that. My hon. Friend points out that to some extent that may act adversely from the point of view of their employment. It is possible but, after all, people do not in fact go about seeking for a country where no Income Tax is levied. People who settle here come under our heavy taxation. On the whole we have survived it, and though I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, I do not at the moment feel a way round it.
5.0 p.m.
I think there would be objections to exempting anyone ordinarily resident here from taxation on his emoluments, wherever they come from. It is one of those anomalies which are inevitable when you get two principles clashing, one, the principle that our taxation is levied on people who reside here on their emoluments, wherever they come from, and the other, the concession we make to foreigners and which our own people get when they go abroad.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "under," insert, "Sub-section one or Sub-section two of."
This is to meat the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).

5.3 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: As far as I can make out, this is a good Amendment, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend in meeting the point I hope that this Bill will be a lesson to him and to his colleagues that they must not be led astray so often when they go to watering places like Hot Springs and other pleasant spots in the United States. When they go to these places they are a little too ready to agree to things. In this Bill they have learned their lesson. This House can be a very awkward place when Members of the Government agree too readily to things at conferences in pleasant places in America.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: As one who has had occasion to criticise this Bill rather severely, and as one who still has considerable misgivings as to what will happen under it, I would like to say how much I appreciate the way the Minister of State and the Attorney-General have listened to the arguments that have been put before them and tried to understand and meet them as far as they could. I appreciate that they were both working ender a difficulty, because the issue was to some extent prejudged before it came to the House. We are really being asked to implement something which the Government had already agreed to assuming that we would assent to it. That has made it difficult for them to meet the various objections. that have been raised. They have done their best, and I would venture the opinion that the Bill as amended is undoubtedly a better Bill than when it was first put before us. I hope that the misgivings which some of us have expressed as to difficulties which may arise under the Bill will prove to be, as the Minister has confidently said they will be, unjustified by events. I hope that the difficulties we foresee will not arise. Time alone will show who was right.

5.7 p.m.

Earl Winterton: As I indicated at an early stage of the Bill, I am, owing to the duties I semiofficially do for the Government, affected


by this Bill, and I have, therefore, thought it right not to take part in the discussions. I think it is a reasonable Bill, and I only rise for the purpose of saying that, though I have disagreed with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on the Bill, I agree with the point he enunciated at an earlier stage. I venture with respect to say to the Government that they should be extremely cautious in this and in all other external matters in coming to agreement with Allied Governments without having previously ascertained what are the views of this House. I can foresee that, if they do not do so, there might arise at some future crate a serious political crisis which might affect our relations with our Allies. Therefore, I hope that in future the House will be fully consulted before any agreement is reached with a foreign Government.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Bill has been very much revised by the discussions we have had, but it is still a Bill which the House does not welcome. The discussions have shown the Government that Bills of this kind ought to be far more carefully considered before they are brought to the House. The fact that we are now allowing a Bill to go forward which none of us welcome, a Bill which is full of difficulties, many of which have not been reconciled by the Amendments we have adopted, shows that it is important that the Departments concerned should look afresh at the whole of the problem of diplomatic immunity. Seeing that in the days to come there will be an increase in the number of international organisations with offices in this country, the whole problem should now be the subject of international consultation or consultation between our own Government and other Governments. We part with the Bill feeling very unhappy about it. Many of our difficulties have not been met, but the treatment which the House has given to the Bill will have a salutary effect on the Government so that in future Bills will be thoroughly well considered before the House is asked to deal with them.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: With a part of what has just been said, I agree. It is right and proper that the House of Commons should carefully examine Bills of this character that affect

the liberties of the people and the rule of law. The House of Commons does right to discharge its duty, and as a result the Bill has undoubtedly been improved. I take exception, however, to the suggestion that this is not a good Bill. It is a very necessary Bill. We have to be realists. We are living in a changing world, and if the new order is to work there must be international co-operation. It must be as easy for the representatives of other nations to live in this country, as for our representatives at conferences elsewhere. We do not want it to be said that London is the worst place to have an international organisation. Some of the speeches made make me think that if those hon. Members had their way that result would be brought about. I want to give my blessing to the Bill, and to the Minister of State for his patience in listening to criticism, his willingness to meet those criticisms in a reasonable way and, at the same time, his determination that the Bill should become an Act of Parliament.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Law: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) for the observations which fell from him a few moments ago. He had misgivings about the Bill, but he has managed to overcome them, and for that I am very grateful. He is prepared to give the Bill a chance. He said that it is a better Bill now than it was when it first came before us for Second Reading. I do not dissent from that at all. I hope that most Bills that come before this House are better Bills when they leave it than when they first came into the House. That, after all, is what the House of Commons is for. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) gave me a warning which, of course, I shall heed.

Earl Winterton: It was a very friendly one.

Mr. Law: Yes, it was a very friendly warning. The only comment I shall make is that my Noble Friend described the Bill as an innovation. That is not entirely true. The only thing that the Bill does is to try to clarify what is, and has for some years become, an international practice.
I was a little baffled, like the right hon. member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), by the observations of the


hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who seemed to constitute himself for the moment into a sort of Leader of the House, when he has hardly been here all day. He drifted in at the last moment and, on whose authority I know not, said that no Member of the House of Commons welcomed the Bill. I do not really think he is justified in saying that. A number of hon. Members have had misgivings about the effects of the Bill, but I hope that the whole House of Commons is agreed that we want to do everything in our power to give these international organisations a fair chance to do an efficient job of work. That is the spirit in which the House of Commons should approach this Measure and not, if I may say so, the spirit which the hon. Member for Shipley voiced a few moments ago.
I can assure the House that the Government are pledged to support these

organisations and that they will do everything they can to make that support a reality. Equally I can assure the House that the Government will do nothing, in giving support to these organisations, to prejudice the liberties of British subjects. On the contrary, the whole purpose of organisations of this kind, organisations of international co-operation, is not to curtail the liberty of British subjects—or indeed of anybody else—but rather to increase the total sum of human liberty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved:
That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Five o'Clock.